Wiktionary:Votes/2016-04/New logo

New logo
We have spent many years with a logo with which many users and readers have expressed dissatisfaction. Votes on Meta which were intended to standardise all Wiktionaries with a single logo were not adopted by our community (the relevant parts of this history, minus the more acrimonious bits, can be seen in the discussion links). This vote has a separate section for each of the three logos with the most historical support, and will work as follows: whichever logo gets the largest support:oppose ratio wins iff that ratio equals or exceeds 2:1, and if neither the book logo nor the tiles logo reaches that ratio, the current logo will remain.

The current logo has been the incumbent for many years, and thus may have greater recognition, but it is often criticised for having a pronunciation that is rather strange (and in contravention of a Wiktionary vote).

The book logo was the winner of a vote to choose a logo for all Wiktionaries and represents a dictionary well, but is used by only a few other Wiktionaries.

The tiles logo is the one used by most of the other Wiktionaries, and also has a favicon which matches it that we could choose to use, but some editors think it does not represent our mission.


 * Vote starts: 00:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Vote created: —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/2010-02/Accepting the results of the Wiktionary logo vote
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2012-12/New favicon
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Talk:Wiktionary
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2010/May
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2007/October
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2013/November
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Tea room/2013/December
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2014/December
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-04/New logo

Support

 * 1)  - I would be happy to see the pronunciation and other aesthetic changes applied to a similar style as well. - TheDaveRoss 14:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  We don't have to be conformists. --WikiTiki89 15:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  simple, clear, expressive--Dixtosa (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And also, the logo is in SVG format, so in case our logo is to be printed on a large canvas we are fine xD. --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  — Ungoliant (falai) 16:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (note: I’m supporting the general idea of this logo, but it definitely needs a redesign!) — Ungoliant (falai) 19:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you're effectively supporting this exact image, actually. But if this vote does not change the status quo, and you are capable of producing a good redesign, I would be happy to set up a vote for it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I’ll worry about that if the current logo is maintained, which doesn’t look like is going to be the case. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a very odd statement to make... currently, it appears that neither logo is doing so well. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  Droigheann (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  I like the wilco subliminal message. Nibiko (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it literally is the next reasonable word? --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Amgine/t&middot;e 05:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  OK for the pronunciation. JackPotte (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  &emsp; — Saltmarsh συζήτηση-talk 15:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the best of the three; I would suggest changes to it though, including cleaning it up and removing the IPA. Deonyi (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not eligible to vote. Equinox ◑ 13:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  — It's still the best of the three. If the IPA transcription is a problem, let's fix it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  WiktionaryEn - DP Derivative.svg It has its problems but seems to be the best of the three options. The derivative of the tiles logo that I posted to the right might be better, and it may avoid some of the problems of the tiles logo. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do like that. Can it be officially made a fourth option? — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You'd probably need to start another vote to add it... I personally prefer the classic tiles logo over it, but it is much better than the book logo and definition logo. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  Poor logo for recognition purposes but the least outdated in appearance. —suzukaze (t・c) 10:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  There can be hardly any doubt that this is the best one of the three presented here. ―Matěj Grabovský (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) . We really need a change. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) . The best logos are graphical, not pure text, and people always complain about the dodgy IPA pronunciation too. Equinox ◑ 14:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) . —CodeCat 14:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) . Only one dialect's pronunciation and does not represent our current layout. — JohnC5 14:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  – as Equinox points out, it's just text. It doesn't look like a logo. (Look at the sister project links at Main page, where this logo sticks out like a sore thumb next to all the others.) —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) . Problematic for a variety of reasons, and I'm sure I'm not the only one getting tired of newbies coming to complain about the phonetic transcription. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) . As noted above, it favors one obscure pronunciation, it doesn't match our layout, it's just text... it's a bad logo. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 8)  -Xbony2 (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) . --Yair rand (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) . -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) . Lmaltier (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) . Vorziblix (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * . English-centric, illegible at small sizes, non-standardized with the majority of other Wiktionaries, pronunciation issues, and a confusing inclusion of "encyclopedia" at the top (meant to indicate Wikipedia being the entry above). Quiddity (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck due to user being ineligible to vote. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * RUSTY NAILS 207 (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC) This logo only reflects one dialect of one language of a multi-dialectal multi-lingual dictionary.
 * User not eligible to vote. Equinox ◑ 11:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) . Too text-heavy, not really a logo. Jberkel (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) . A lot of wrong stuff: the slogan and the title of the project are included (it shouldn't, see all other projects); the slogan is the wrong one (see front page: "The free dictionary"); the top and bottom words (Wikipedia and wilco) are not the actual previous and next words in en.wiktionary itself, and it can still change; the IPA is controversial; the IPA uses [] when the actual page uses //; the noun is abbreviated, again unlike the current style of the English project. Furthermore: only using English hides the multilingual aspect of the project (that also makes it impossible to be used for other languages, so no way to use it as a brand). Too much text, too complex, no colour, can't scale, not a hint of symbolism. How is this a logo? — Dakdada 09:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) . Bland logo with disputed content. --ContraVentum (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) . Way too much text. IPA transcription is weird. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 22:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  Not great. Ƿidsiþ 07:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 6)  Leasnam (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 7)  Too cluttered. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 8)  Too texty, doesn't stand out as a logo --Qef (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 9)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  — This just doesn’t matter. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is very important – the logo is the first impression people get of a website. The advice "don't judge a book by its cover" is rarely followed in the online world. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 22:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  Stylish and clever in its way, but very problematic (texty, not graphical, content distracting). —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Actually, I'll abstain from this one -- but anything but the one w/ the tiles, please. · 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 ·   20:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Doesn't look like a logo. But it's the best of the options on the table. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) . I like both of the new logo options. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) . It's okay. Might be nicer with some subtle colour. Equinox ◑ 14:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you wanna design it, be my guest... —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Μετάknowledge: The book logo is a PNG, unlike the tiles. For tiles, I made a derivative that I posted down the page. For the book logo in PNG, I don't know how to meaningfully make a derivative. On Meta, someone complained that the book logo is only available in PNG (a raster format), which I think is a valid complaint. Admittedly, File:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg is not much better in that regard: while it is an SVG, it originated via a simple vectorization of File:Wiktionary-logo-en.png, and therefore the letters are composed of graphical primitives, which makes it real hard to make meaningful changes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) . —CodeCat 14:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) . - This is my first choice. - TheDaveRoss 14:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) . — JohnC5 14:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , second choice. Better than the current logo, but I don't see how a book is specific to Wiktionary as opposed to other WMF projects like Wikipedia and Wikibooks. It also seems sort of anachronistic to me—some of the most valuable aspects of Wiktionary are due to the fact that it is not a paper dictionary. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  — Ungoliant (falai) 16:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) . A serious-looking logo, unlike the tiles, and one which does apply to a dictionary rather than only to a game, although Mr. Granger has a good point that an encyclopedia or Wikibooks book is also a book. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) . --Yair rand (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) . -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) . Even though I kind of like the logo we have now, this suggestion is slightly more pleasing. Have to stay true to my one and only rule though…new is always better…always. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) . Looks professional. — TeragR disc./con. 23:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) . I like this one. It reads "dictionary" to me and has a nice consonance with the Wikipedia logo. It also seems that it would be easy to adapt the text itself for Wiktionaries other than en., rather than needing to adapt the logo itself as is the case with the current one. —Leftmostcat (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 8)  as second choice. Vorziblix (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * RUSTY NAILS 207 (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC) I like how this logo is an actual dictionary
 * User not eligible to vote. Equinox ◑ 11:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  -- the best of the three. It's not great, but I certainly like it more than the others, especially that one with the tiles, which looks like something straight out of 2005. · 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 ·   20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Look, a real live dictionary! —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 22:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  (or the tiles option is OK) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  DerekWinters (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  Ƿidsiþ 07:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) . Leasnam (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 7)  This should serve well until people have forgotten what paper books are. Struthious Bandersnatch (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 8)  Word. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 9)  Better than what we've got now, and more likely to win than the tiles. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Supporting something because it's more likely to win is a bad rationale... -Xbony2 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  This is the ugliest of the three. --WikiTiki89 15:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  seriously? A book, just a book and the title beneath it for WT logo?--Dixtosa (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  2004 called. They want their awkward back. —suzukaze (t・c) 19:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  I have a theory why almost none of the language variants of Wiktionary use this logo- it is the ugliest logo I've ever seen. -Xbony2 (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) . — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6)  See the initials of the first three words in this logo for my response. Nibiko (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean, like Wikipedia :D ? — Dakdada 10:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Amgine/t&middot;e 05:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  too dark, too much detail, subtitle is hard to read. And I can't find it in a good resolution. Enosh (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  for above reasons. And it seems there was a copyright issue. Lmaltier (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  Muddy, too detailed and generic. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Confusing with Wikibooks; Would add a third variation to the global Wiktionaries logo inconsistencies; too generic. Quiddity (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck due to user being ineligible to vote. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  Ugly, and using the dated and overused book metaphor. Jberkel (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) . It is trying to imitate the Wikipedia logo, which is already bad, but it also of bad quality. The top right puzzle piece doesn't look like one, instead it looks like the book is disintegrating or burning. The right page is supposed to be assembled puzzle pieces, but it just look like a grid. The book is too generic and could represent Wikibooks or Wikisource: it actually looks more like an encyclopedia tome than a dictionary. Too much detail, not scalable, no colour. (The title and slogan use wrong fonts and sizes, but this can be changed). — Dakdada 09:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) . Unoriginal motive and grainy. Wrong illumination and angle. --ContraVentum (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * : Not clear how a book represents an online dictionary any more than it represents any other online version of something available offline also (e.g. 'pedia, 'source, 'species, 'quote). Plus, the right-hand page needs Scotch tape. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : I find the book logo worse than the current one and the tile 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. I made a derivation of the tile logo that does not have the tiles; perhaps those who do not like the tiles themselves could like the derivation. I posted the derivation below in ; it is File:WiktionaryEn - DP Derivative.svg. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : As it stands, I don't think the book logo is an improvement over the current word logo. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : A book to symbolize a dictionary which cannot be practically printed. It's simultaneously too on-the-nose and exactly what we don't stand for. The puzzle-piece pages are a cool concept but the logo is far too busy. Also it appears to only be 135 × 111 pixels. I'm all for a change of logo, but maybe something more professionally designed. Pengo (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  Too grey, title too small, and not an SVG --Qef (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  — This just doesn’t matter. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh. Better than the current logo, but not as good as the tiles. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Changing to support. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you prefer it to the current logo, then the tactical choice to make would be to support this logo as well. It remains, of course, your choice how to use your votes. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If it looks like it could make a difference, maybe I'll change my vote later on. At the moment, though, it doesn't look like any of the logos has community support. If that happens, I guess we're stuck with the status quo, though I wish it meant we would have no logo at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment — As it stands, I don't think the book logo is an improvement over the current word logo. However, if it were made more dynamic – for example, if instead of showing the whole book the logo focused on just the incomplete jigsaw page, perhaps tilted at an angle – I might reconsider. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) . I like both of the new logo options. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  If we are to get rid of the current logo, this one is far better than the book logo. --WikiTiki89 15:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , first choice. Visually appealing; hints at words, which are what dictionaries collect; indicates the multilingual nature of the project, like Wikipedia's logo; and seems to be the most popular logo on other large Wiktionaries. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) . I've already altered my preferences to display this when I'm logged in. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Unless a fourth option arises, this as good as it gets IMO. -Xbony2 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) . — justin(r)leung { (t...) 20:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) The favicon overall color is enough different from the sister projects. JackPotte (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, can you add the template if you intended this as a support vote, or indent your statement if you did not. --WikiTiki89 14:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was indeed a supportive vote without any template. JackPotte (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , but I prefer the book logo. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  Really ideal, in my opinion. Much better than the Wikipedia logo, but consistent with it, as you also may think to a game. Lmaltier (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Only iconic one, multilingual, suggests words. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the tiles symbolize the way the characters/graphemes can be rearranged to form words. Limited characters, huge combinations thereof. It also hints at our multi-lingual nature, which is important and a core aspect. Quiddity (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck due to user being ineligible to vote. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  as first choice. Vorziblix (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * RUSTY NAILS 207 (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC) I like how this logo fits into the Wikipedia logo
 * User not eligible to vote. Equinox ◑ 11:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  Like the idea of the logo, but would love to see some further design / colour adjustments. – Jberkel (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) . The less bad of the three proposals. Different enough from the other Wikimedia logos with recognizable shapes and colours, with an easy favicon as a bonus. Good symbolism (the building blocks of words, multilingual); more joyful than the two other proposals: why should a dictionary be austere? Also, this is the most used logo outside of en.wiktionary, so it may lead to a universal brand for the project (finally?). Cons: latin-centric W at the centre (and with a different colour to bout); people may think "Scrabble" (or word games) before "Wiktionary". The design could use some work. — Dakdada 09:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The W in the middle definitely shows some bias, but it's not as much of a sin as the current logo. To give the tile logo some slack, the book logo may also have a bit of bias- although it's small and hard to tell, it looks like the words on the page go left-to-right. Fortunately, the majority of languages use the Latin alphabet, and the majority of languages are left-to-right, and both details are small components of the logo. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) . Creative and cheerful. --ContraVentum (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Ƿidsiþ 07:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  colourful, shows the international nature of wiktionary, and gives us a more distinctive favicon --Qef (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Makes me think "word game", not "dictionary". Equinox ◑ 14:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Rearrange the following letters to form a word: シश말λWشЖ维ש Nibiko (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 말ش 말λWЖ approximates marshmallows. How many points do I get? Equinox ◑ 19:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) . —CodeCat 14:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) . - TheDaveRoss 14:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) . — JohnC5 14:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  It is clear and colourful but does not go with our bleak design.--Dixtosa (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) . With all due respect to Smurrayinchester, I feel that this logo looks rather childish. In my experience talking about Wiktionary with random people in real life, it seems that almost everyone thinks it’s a “nerd’s ”. We need to send the message that Wiktionary is serious business, and we need a serious looking logo for that. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6)  per Equinox and Ungoliant. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 7)  Droigheann (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 8)  See the initials of the first three words in this logo for my response. Nibiko (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 9)  --Vahag (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - Amgine/t&middot;e 05:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 11)  the colours are ugly. Enosh (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) . Per Ungoliant. — TeragR disc./con. 23:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) . This logo has never made sense to me and always struck me as being out of character both with the logos for other projects and with Wiktionary itself. I think it does nothing to convey the purpose of the site. —Leftmostcat (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) * Words are made of letters, and we study words. The different scripts convey the purpose "words of all languages". This logo conveys the purpose of the site much better than other proposals. Lmaltier (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) . · 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 ·   20:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : What does Scrabble have to do with a dictionary? (In other words: What Equinox said.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite a bit more than a spherical puzzle has to do with an encyclopedia. --WikiTiki89 14:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) ; NOPE NOPE NOPE this is just too outdated. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 22:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) . — Leasnam (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : I don't think the tiles logo is an improvement over the current word logo. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  — This just doesn’t matter. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  - Equinox said it spot on. While word games are fun, we're not really that playful a crowd as most people here do treat Wiktionary as serious busniess. But people stopped me voting against it with their positive associations, which is nice. Korn &#91;kʰũːɘ̃n&#93; (talk)

Oppose the vote

 * Oppose this whole vote since it is structured in a way that does not make it clear that status quo prevails. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My bad: the vote page says "whichever logo gets the largest support:oppose ratio wins iff that ratio equals or exceeds 2:1, and if neither the book logo nor the tiles logo reaches that ratio, the current logo will remain". And that is fine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to the fact that the status quo prevails. I think that if none of the candidates gets at least 2:1 support, we should have no logo at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Having no logo would be ridiculous. And, unfortunately, I don't think it's likely any of the logos will get 2:1 support. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be less ridiculous than the current logo. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is also looking like the winner will have the least support. Rules 1, common sense 0. - TheDaveRoss 12:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If editors want to enable the plain-majority winner, they can do so via what I call an amplifying vote: a subsequent vote for the plain-majority winner of the present vote. While it looks like needless bureaucracy, it makes it possible to have status quo prevail and yet let plain majority decide if a supermajority so decides. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I posted a derivative of the tiles to the right. It probably does not matter, but anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I genuinely like that one better than any of the ones up here to vote on, lol. This entire vote seems a bit rushed. 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 ·  13:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I view this as a normalization vote: the 2 "new" logos were actually voted on meta and are now used in almost all other projects (with the tiles one being the most widely used). Proposing yet another logo should not be done at the English Wiktionary level, but at the level of all Wiktionaries (hopefully). — Dakdada 16:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose this vote for two reasons:The rule "whichever logo gets the largest support:oppose ratio wins iff that ratio equals or exceeds 2:1" doesn't represent the votes well. For example, if logo A gets 8 supporters, 2 opposers, and B gets 800 supporters, 300 opposers, I don't think it makes sense to change to A just because it happens to have eight supporters. Perhaps a Borda vote (with mandatory ranking of all options) would be better.The vote pits three logos against one another without first offering people the opportunity to submit other possibilities, restricting the field for no apparent reason. At the very least, the other logos from the previous m: votes (1, 2) should have been included as options. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's true that this vote design could lead in theory to such a problem as you describe, but it obviously won't, given our community. Why did I restrict the field? Well, to try to concentrate support instead of sprinkling it across logos with marginal support at best. The incumbent and the two that have actually won votes at Meta quite obviously enjoy a level of historical support that is above the rest. I'm just interested in getting us a logo that won't elicit frequent complaints due to how bad it is. I gather from the fact that you're opposing this vote that you don't actually care about that, but if you or anyone else does, I welcome discussion on the talkpage of the vote or at my talkpage about how we can draft a vote more likely to produce a consensus. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Even in theory, voters are likely to vote support or oppose for each of the logos, which would keep the total number of votes roughly equal for each logo. --WikiTiki89 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Decision
The vote concludes with no change to our logo. The incumbent logo has been clearly demonstrated to lack support in the community, but it's not clear what logo will be more popular. Dan Polansky has created WT:Votes/2016-05/New logo 2 for a new derivative of the tiles logo, and I hope that vote has a large turnout as well, and any subsequent votes until we can find a logo we can all accept. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1 (incumbent logo) fails 14-21-4 (40% support).
 * Option 2 (book logo) has no consensus 23-19-1 (55% support).
 * Option 3 (tiles logo) fails 17-19-2 (47% support).