Accepting the results of the Wiktionary logo vote[edit]
Winning Wiktionary logo by AAEngelman
Voting on: Accepting the results of the Wiktionary logo vote, and changing the English Wiktionary logo to the winning logo. See tools:~skalman/wikt/logo/ for some examples of how the logo looks in various situations.
SupportYair rand 22:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I look forward to having a proper logo (and being rid of the "that's not how dictionary is pronounced" complaints. :) --Yair rand22:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because Wiktionary must have a common logo, as all the other projects do. However, I don't like that we're voting on this here at all. The main reason this had to be taken to meta was that individual language Wiktionaries would probably choose different logos, had they voted on it individually. I had the impression we had gone into the big vote with the idea that its outcome would be binding for all Wiktionaries (and Wiktionary as a whole!) and I don't like the idea that individual sections can now just look at it as advisory and reject it now, creating the same situation we had to begin with. The Meta vote was the solution. Now we simply must accept the outcome. – Krun07:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ƿidsiþ, since an important function of a logo is to maintain visual identity over time, changing from one poor logo to another is worse than just sticking with one. You might consider changing your vote. —MichaelZ. 2010-03-29 15:26 z
Nothing could be worse than sticking with what we have. We get confused complaints about it on a weekly basis. The new one is at least inoffensive. Ƿidsiþ15:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Our visual presence will attract less notice and comment. After a year and a half we have achieved inoffensiveness. Let's make our motto Obscurity by 2015!—MichaelZ. 2010-03-29 19:02 z
Support I think this is the best of the batch by far. Hopefully this will finally replace the current one, though I am okay with the tiles as well. -kslays20:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am unstriking my vote on the condition that if this passes, we will use the blurred one.[1] I still maintain that this logo is an improvement over the current one, regardless of how flawed the vote on Meta might have been. If someone has any better suggestions, I'm all ears. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί 21:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Regradless of which one I find preferable (which does, in fact, happen to be the one picked), I'd like to see some unification, as opposed to the current assortment. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί21:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeIvan Štambuk 23:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Voting on voting is simply absurd. I'd personally rather prefer tile logo which IMHO looks nicer, is more legible and emphasizes more the international character of this project. This vote is introducing false dichotomy, and for it to function properly one should count among the "opposing" votes all the Wiktionary regulars' votes that voted for the tile logo on meta (unless they've changed their mind in the meantime). --Ivan Štambuk23:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote about whether to use the book or the tiles, it's about whether the English Wiktionary should change the logo at all. "Oppose" means that you support keeping the text logo. --Yair rand23:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said it was introducing false dichotomy. If this is a vote to change from the current text logo to the AAEngelman's logo - it should be explicitly stated so in the vote proposal. It is nice that AAEngelman's logo won the meta vote (not by a great margin though), but I don't see that as relevant. It's unfair that only one logo is presented as an option. --Ivan Štambuk
Re: "one should count among the 'opposing' votes all the Wiktionary regulars' votes that voted for the tile logo on meta": Nonsense. I voted for the book logo, but if the tile logo had won, I'd still be voting {{support}} now. This vote is not "introducing [a] false dichotomy", because the dichotomy is real: we either accept the result of the vote on meta, or we reject that result. Those are our options. —RuakhTALK01:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the only reason why you're supporting the book logo is because it has won the vote at meta, regardless of your previous preference? OK, that is your right. However, your reasoning is not likely to be shared by other individuals.
The point that I'm trying to make is, if there is a vote proposing change of official logo, it should be proposed in a way that gives equal opportunity to all the alternatives. There has to be free choice among multiple options. By forming the vote in a way that the only option is for the book logo (and against the text logo; there is not even an option for the text logo, which should be in order to balance out votes of those who'd support either, or have mild preference to one of the options but wouldn't mind if the other "won"), unfair preference is given to that particular option.
The dichotomy is false because it doesn't include all of the available options. It is as if the vote was carefully crafted in other for the book logo to pass. Given that the book logo at meta only "won" by a slight margin (5%), this seems rather unfair. --Ivan Štambuk02:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other options? There was a vote at meta. This vote decides whether we accept the results of that vote as applying here. Either we do accept the results of that vote or we don't. --EncycloPetey02:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would you suggest? That each Wiktionary hold entirely independent votes on which logo to use, and each Wiktionary use the winner of their own vote? --Yair rand02:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or all the wiktionaries should use the logo that won on meta without a local vote. If there has to be a local vote, it must be put forth in a way giving all the alternatives equal opportunity of winning, regardless of the outcome of the meta vote. It's pointless to vote on the results of votes elsewhere. The way this vote is proposed, it gives an undue precedence to a particular logo, that could have won the local vote, but it just as easily might have not won it. There has to be choice among all the options, not only among the selected few. --Ivan Štambuk02:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn't improve on most of the current logo's failings, and it doesn't even fit the definition of a logo (it's representative, not symbolic nor emblematic). It doesn't matter who likes or doesn't like it: a logo is functional artwork, and this product fails to fulfil its intended functions. (And why is this vote started before meta have finished with the planned touch-ups?) —MichaelZ. 2010-03-29 05:26 z
OpposeDan Polansky 09:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) The vote on Meta was designed as almost a winner-takes-all vote, allowing only two candidates to pass to the round two. In addition, I find this picture wholly unacceptable as a "logo". I understand that if enough Wiktionaries reject the result of the Meta vote, we'll stay with the status quo. --Dan Polansky09:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my opinion this isn't a definitive logo for wiktionary communities. Waiting for a wider-consent logo, it's better to leave the current one--Diuturno13:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the tile logo lost. The vote is finished. It can't just become the winner because the English Wiktionary decides to ignore the outcome. --Yair rand20:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The ratification of this flawed vote should be rejected for a number of reasons. There were irregularities in the way in which the vote was run which undoubtedly affected the outcome. Many of these issues could have been worked out if the vote had been better planned or discussed, but it became clear that the organizers of the vote decided to simply start the vote without much interest from the community, and then declare that the vote was somehow official or agreed upom.
The current form of the logo is a copyright violation, as noted on the talk page, and as some of the supporters are aware. In more than two months, this apparently has not been fixed. The logo probably shouldn't even be displayed on this page until that is fixed.
No logo received a consensus. The two "winners" went to a runoff based on winning 12.5% and 10.8% of the vote, respectively. The final vote count when those two went to a runoff anyway was 55.9% to 44.1%. By comparison, recent votes here were rejected as lacking consensus with support levels at 63%, 55%, 55%, 62%, 60%, and so on. Furthermore, as you'll see, the vote tallies are not representative of the Wiktionary community's actual opinion anyway.
Despite the normal custom for votes on Meta, for some reason there were no suffrage requirements for this vote. For example, here is what the steward vote required for voter eligibility.
A number of voters have few edits, and would not even qualify under the very loose suffrage requirements we require here.
Many of the voters are also not Wiktionarians, being mostly Wikipedians and Metamedians.
Moreover, there was no attempt to determine whether the voters were who they claimed to be. It is typical on Meta votes to require voters to link between their Meta accounts and their main accounts on their home project to prove their identity. This was not done here for some reason.
The voting was set up in order to favor the outcome that occurred. It was designed, for no apparent reason, to go to a runoff of the two top finalists, when this merely ensured that the candidates which shared designs, color schemes, or certain elements would have their vote split. I have no idea why you would include two logos that varies only based on whether there is a large "W" over an identical graphic, or based on the size of a stylized finger over a graphic.
The actual rules of the vote continually changed during the vote. In the original version, the Meta vote would select a logo to submit to the Wiktionaries, and only the local votes would be binding on each project, as it is their right to select their own logo.[3] If a binding Meta vote were desired, the projects should have agreed to be bound to the vote beforehand; none did. Then, without discussion, the vote page was changed to say it was a binding vote on all projects[4], then it wasn't again for a few hours[5], and then it maybe was[6], and then it really was[7]. This was never agreed upon, however; before the vote, there had only been support for a non-binding result.
We all received spam on our talk pages here urging us to vote for one of the candidates, which was apparently acceptable, even though it clearly taints the results.
The vote was poorly translated and poorly advertised. Japanese, Arabic, Chinese, Korean, and many other languages didn't even have any information on the vote page in their language for one or both votes. Many Wiktionaries had no notice of the logo discussion or vote.
The 60% of Wiktionaries that are apparently needed to ratify the logo is an arbitrary and illogical selection. That number necessarily includes Wiktionaries with only a few hundred or thousand articles and few or zero editors. All Wiktionaries apparently have equal weight; the Spanish Wiktionary's four supporters in their completed vote are the same as all of us on this page.
The reason most of this makes little sense is because the rules and process of the vote were not discussed or agreed upon prior to the vote starting. It was essentially written in August by one Wikipedian[8] who was never heard from again. After months of very little interest, some of which was negative anyway, the vote was simply started without any indication that there was a desire for one (the original proposal that started it all wasn't even made by a Wiktionarian). Moreover, in that time, one Wiktionary even voted to boycott the logo vote.
I cannot support any result of this logo "vote," and won't until there has been agreement and desire by and for Wiktionarians to change the logo, sufficient time given for discussion of process and proposals, and a valid consensus reached. Dominic·t11:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, one by one:
The copyvio can be easily fixed. I would have preferred waiting until the finished version was uploaded, but most people apparently thought that it didn't matter that much.
The point of the vote was to figure out which logo is the most preferred logo, so all that is needed is a majority. As you can probably figure out, it is impossible to have a multiple choice vote with a definitive result any other way.
Everyone was welcome to participate in discussion of how the vote should work, and many people did. There really were no objections when, after discussion, Epson291 added the decided rules on to the vote page.
The Dutch Wiktionary boycott was a result of the fact that the English Wiktionary did not begin to use the tile logo after the 2006 vote. The Dutch Wiktionarians view this as a perfectly good reason to not abide by this vote. This was not because of any particular problem with the new vote.
I fail to understand how Thecurran's completely unacceptable spam on talk pages is relevant to this vote.
The vote was advertised on every active Wiktionary, and on some inactive Wiktionaries just in case. I happen to think that the vote page was translated quite well, given the size of some of these communities.
The rules and process were discussed extensively before the start of the vote. I don't know where you got the idea that it was some spur-of-the-moment decision. And yes, the discussion was started by the Wikimedia volunteer coordinator. I fail to understand how you view this as a problem.
Yes, there was some confusion during the vote. Some people believed that there would be some foundation intervention about the results, some thought there wouldn't be. Does the confusion affect whether the results should be accepted?
If this vote passes along with many others, it does not mean that every Wiktionary will have to use the new logo. Those that vote against switching will keep their current logo. The many Wiktionaries that don't have any active communities that are using the old English text logo will likely be switched though, as will the logo on www.wiktionary.org and the favicon. --Yair rand17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it is a problem that there was no collective will from the Wiktionary community to start the process, the process was biased towards a decision to hold an election in a certain way even though there was not much interest from the community, and non-community members were a major factor in making the decision, often based on clear misunderstandings about our project. If no one really thought that the logo was a priority, and only a handful of people cared enough to comment at all in the space of months, then the effort should have been scrapped, rather than take that as a sign that it was time to start voting. You say there was sufficient discussion of the process, translation, and advertisement, but it was clear to me throughout that this was not true. Obviously, suffrage is also a big issue that you didn't address, and one which I find makes it hard to believe there was much discussion (rather than declaring) about the procedure. How can you trust a process in which many of the voters were either complete newbies or from other projects, and there was no attempt to confirm their identity anyway? It's especially troubling since that was one of the main lessons we were supposed to have learned from the first logo vote. Dominic·t21:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First off I'm an active Wikipedia not Wiktionary editor, but I have to say that I do not approve of the new logo. I understand the old logo is not perfect, but the new one is worse. A good logo should convey the basic idea of what it is representing. The generic picture of a book does not do this for a dictionary. I'm sorry, but the people who want a new logo need to go back to the drawing board. Just because this logo proposal was the best of the worst does not mean it should be used. Bluepjs2322:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The book logo is a nice graphic, but it is not suitable as a logo. At best, it is a decoration. A dictionary company might add the book graphic as a decorative mark at the bottom of the fly leaf, but no successful company has a company logo anything like that. As bad as the old logo is, it’s still a lot better than the book for the purposes of a logo. —Stephen07:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeUltimateria03:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC) - It's too complicated to be an effective logo, and there is no emphasis on words (see Amgine's comment). If that becomes our logo, I will think of an encyclopedia every time I see it. The current one get the point across, represents what we do, and I'm sure I speak for most Wiktionarians when I say I don't care about how it looks among the logos of our sister projects. The choice that was laid out like the current logo with Wikimedia colors and simple shapes is an ideal logo to me.[reply]
Abstain Although this logo wasn't one that I supported in round 1, I was actually starting to get a bit excited about it. But Dominic makes persuasive arguments, and I can't support all Wiktionaries' being bound by the result of such a flawed voting process. —RuakhTALK16:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AbstainCirceus 01:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I think the new logo creates problems of its own, but am torn between that issue and my advocacy for consistency across languages. Circeus01:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skalman put together a version with the left page blurred on the logo toolserver page, effectively eliminating the copyvio. The only problem is that version has a capital T in "the free dictionary". (See here.) --Yair rand14:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So now we have a logo that we all know includes copyvio, but part of it looks out-of-focus. This is not refinement or improvement of a professional-quality logo. It is embarrassing. —MichaelZ. 2010-04-13 16:29 z
Abstain —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I support a unified logo, and there are problems with the current logo, but… I was singularly unexcited by the design/voting, and the proposed logo is dire (generic book, uniconic by any stretch). I’m hesitant to say “throw it out, do over”, but I think we’d be better served if WMF decided that an error was made in the first place, that this process isn’t working, hire a professional branding organization to come up with something acceptable, and have a better-organized vote.[reply]
Just pointing out a few things: Back in January, during the second round, Cary Bass (Bastique), the WMF Volunteer Coordinator, posted a note on the vote talk page saying "The original Wiktionary logo was only ever intended as a fill-in logo until a new logo could be established, and will be entirely displaced by the results of this poll. ... Any project which is not the tiled will automatically be switched to a localized version of the winning logo." A couple weeks ago, I asked Bastique (here) whether this meant the result would be enforced by the foundation and whether the local vote was supposed to be happening at all, and received the answer "as the project never "approved" any logo whatsoever, and the overall vote was in favor of changing the default logo, changing to this logo would seem to be the appropriate outcome for the English Wiktionary and any other projects which have never voted to approve a logo. A vote to set the original logo as the logo of the English Wiktionary is the only outcome that would dictate otherwise." Whether this vote is supposed to be happening or not, whether there will be WMF intervention or not, and what exactly will happen when this vote is closed remain, to me at least, completely unclear. Hopefully it is all perfectly clear to everyone else, and I'm just utterly clueless. (Note: I'd appreciate it if no one were to respond in such a way as to start a large and pointless flamewar. Thanks.) --Yair rand06:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Cary's statement only makes sense if the Wiktionary community were to actually have come together as a community and decide on a different logo. That's not an accurate description of what happened, as we had a flawed election with no voter criteria, no oversight, too many non-Wiktionarians. I think Cary seems to care more about Wiktionary having a unified logo than about having a logo we actually agree on. That he thinks the tile logo had broad support last time around is, I think, evidence that he is out of touch with our community. Dominic·t08:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Cary's reasoning, but it should have been applied to the tile logo (or there should have been a requirement that all projects organize an internal vote about the tile logo before organizing a new vote for a new logo, in order to clarify things). And I have no idea of what the result of a vote (here) about the tile logo would have been: the result of the fr.wiktionary vote was quite unexpected, a few opponents don't mean that that most contributors disagree. Lmaltier17:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, why discount the abstentions and give a qualified summary? The full picture is that 57% of participants support, 37% oppose, and 7% abstained. —MichaelZ. 2010-04-29 15:03 z
I guess my understanding was that abstain genuinely meant abstain, and wouldn't count for or against. If you take percentage to be the determining factor, which I believe to be the case, counting your way makes abstain votes count just as much against consensus as oppose votes. I could be wrong, but if so, I would appreciate a link. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί15:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. But it gives a sense of how the community feels, and it's significant when a vote's purpose is to uphold something (as here) or to deny something. If 20% vote in favour of something and 85% abstain, then we couldn't claim that the community supports it. (And if a hundred members took the trouble to register their abstention, then we couldn't say that nobody cares.) It may not be that important here, but I am suspicious of the 55%–44% final vote on Meta, which tossed out the opinion of anyone who disliked both choices – any claims that 55% of the community supported the winner would be misleading. Sorry I don't have a reference; that's just my interpretation of abstentions. —MichaelZ. 2010-04-29 16:08 z
And just to clarify (since those unfamiliar with our practices may not be familiar with this one), no consensus is effectively a failure.—msh210℠15:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, nothing. We haven't voted to accept, so we stick with Old Texty until another proposal appears. I'm curious about how many Wiktionaries will accept this one, and how many weeks it will be until someone executes the graphical tweaks. —MichaelZ. 2010-04-30 05:24 z
You have made your views clear many times before. As explained above, whether this vote was supposed to happen, and what the result will be, remain unclear. Since no good can come from debating the topic endlessly, I suggest that no further comment be made on it. Past this, the conclusion is out of the hands of the community. I do not intend to respond to any further comment here, and I suggest everyone else do the same. All that could come from continuing discussion is wasting time from building the dictionary. --Yair rand05:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me only note that my understanding of the result is the same as the one of Atelaes: 60% supporting, not counting abstain votes, the result is No consensus. The tradition is to discount abstaining votes when determining the percentage. And regardless of the tradition: if abstaining votes would be counted, they would have exactly the same effect as opposing votes, so this way of counting does not even make sense, as Atelaes said. --Dan Polansky13:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly the same as the difference between a vote of weak support or weak oppose and a vote of strong support or strong oppose. The effect is the same either way, but inquiring minds like to know this sort of thing. —RuakhTALK16:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually say make this vote longer, only 46 out of thousands voted. Why, because nobody knew about the vote. I think there should be a banner at the top and extend this vote 1 month, after there is banner about the vote. This was like a small portion. There could be many supporters, opposers, and abstainers. We really need to extend this vote. The spesh man04:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me point out that this is a vote of English Wiktionary; Wiktionaries in other languages have each their own vote. I have never seen "thounsands" of voters vote for anything in English Wiktionary. This vote has more participants than is usual in votes on English Wiktionary; some users who contributed nothing to English Wiktionary have participated.
Let me also quote from Meta the part of the voting process that seems to call for this vote[9]:
"Following logo modifications, each of Wiktionary's language editions will hold their own vote on whether to approve or reject the winning logo. If 60% of the Wiktionaries approve of the logo, it will be applied to all of those Wiktionaries. Otherwise, this logo contest will have no effect, and each wiki will continue to use its current logo.
"Following logo modifications." Does this mean that they had already happened or that this vote was pointless from the very beginnning? --Thrissel08:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but their was no banner. Stretching this vote 1 more month with the banner, will show more users about this vote. I mean, come on, you had to go through a whole bunch of pages to get to it. Nobody knew about this vote. The spesh man21:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me that lots of people knew about this vote. —MichaelZ. 2010-05-03 05:36 z
Number of participants in all recently ended votes
Also, without the abstain, which kind of does nothing, you get more than 60%. Abstain is pretty much like neutral, like you weren't in the vote.
"Following logo modifications, each of Wiktionary's language editions will hold their own vote on whether to approve or reject the winning logo. If 60% of the Wiktionaries approve of the logo, it will be applied to all of those Wiktionaries. Otherwise, this logo contest will have no effect, and each wiki will continue to use its current logo.
The vote's over. One month was plenty of time, and the vote was advertised as well as any vote is. Almost all of our regular contributors have voted. I'm not terribly happy with the result either, but get over it, please. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί23:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Strambuk. This vote did not, in my opinion, have enough support or concensus to have it pass, so the new logo should not have been applied until a concensus is reached, which, in my opinion, has not been achieved. Razorflame19:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what the heck is with that? Nothing's supposed to happen unless and until the logo is updated and 60% of Wiktionary projects approve it. Who thinks they have the right to mess around with the main project branding? Restore the logo, now! —MichaelZ. 2010-05-08 21:50 z
Ah, see File:Wiki.png. Thanks for restoring the logo, Prince K. Yair, please don't unilaterally mess with major site elements. This would deserve an editing block, in my opinion. —MichaelZ. 2010-05-08 22:02 z
A few days ago, I asked Cary Bass what happens now that the English Wiktionary logo acceptance vote has failed, and I received the answer "...The English Wiktionary has never voted to have any logo. The default logo should be changed to the one the overall community voted for. The English Wiktionary should therefore have the default logo. Someone should file a bug to change the default logo." Apparently this vote was not supposed to happen, and this was all a huge mistake made by me. Not only that, but apparently I publicized a whole lot of things related to the logo vote that were incorrect. I am terribly sorry about this.
I submitted a bug report, as apparently was supposed to happen, to change the logo to the one voted for by the overall community. --Yair rand05:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ignoring the community, I think the whole point is that you've never had a successful vote to pick what logo you want so the default global logo is what you get. By uploading the old 'default' logo, you've in fact fiat accepted the old logo as one everybody wants. Which isn't true as it has not been accepted through a vote. OverlordQ20:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though I think it would be preferable if the change was performed through a foundation action anyway. --Yair rand21:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the only one thinking that the logo decision is getting ridiculous? The voting process has been definitively compromised by childish policies and logo selection. We have the possibility to learn from our errors: the fairest way is to restart the global voting including all the policy improvements proposed. Otherwise the WMF should nullify the global vote and impose whatever logo they wants, as it seems they are doing with the book logo (FYIthis is the opened bug). --Diuturno09:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain makes plenty of sense, and is traditionally used in English Wiktionary. See also the paragraph above starting with "Let me only note that my understanding of the result is the same as the one of Atelaes:...". --Dan Polansky05:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Ivan Štambuk 23:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Voting on voting is simply absurd. I'd personally rather prefer tile logo which IMHO looks nicer, is more legible and emphasizes more the international character of this project. This vote is introducing false dichotomy, and for it to function properly one should count among the "opposing" votes all the Wiktionary regulars' votes that voted for the tile logo on meta (unless they've changed their mind in the meantime). --Ivan Štambuk 23:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Abstain Although this logo wasn't one that I supported in round 1, I was actually starting to get a bit excited about it. But Dominic makes persuasive arguments, and I can't support all Wiktionaries' being bound by the result of such a flawed voting process. —RuakhTALK 16:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
