Wiktionary:Votes/2012-12/New favicon

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2012-12/New favicon. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/2012-12/New favicon, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/2012-12/New favicon in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/2012-12/New favicon you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2012-12/New favicon will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/2012-12/New favicon, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

New favicon

  • Voting on: Changing our favicon (that little image found in various places in different browsers to designate the site, including just left of the URL line, on tabs, and in browsing history) to the image shown on the right. This is because the favicon we currently use is also employed by English Wikipedia, so changing ours will help differentiate our site and make it easier for readers. As can be seen below, discussions have raged for at least 6 years, with no result, but this vote attempts to change that.

Option 1:

Wiktionary test tab

Option 2:

Wiktionary test tab

This change would be brought about by filing a bug report at Bugzilla, asking them to change it per the documentation at mw:Manual:$wgFavicon.

  • Vote starts: 00:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Option 1

  1. Support —CodeCat 01:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support SemperBlotto (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support This is the standard Wiktionary favicon, the favicon used by all Wiktionary projects not using the Wikipedia favicon. Lmaltier (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support I don't think that new favicon is prettier, but it's better to have a new one to distinguish it from Wikipedia's icon. Maro 21:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support because the point of having a favicon is that it makes our bookmarks not look the same as some other site's. And who doesn't love toast!? —Michael Z. 2013-01-24 22:30 z
  7. Support --WikiTiki89 04:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  8. Per above. (I arrived here by accident while looking for another discussion and looks like I'm allowed to vote here; not by a big margin, though, as most of my edits are on it.wikt: feel free to strike my vote if it hurts you.) --Nemo 13:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  9. Support; and please have the developers include higher-resolution versions in the .ico file. It always gets pixelated on HiDPI monitors otherwise. – Krun (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  10. Support. Presumably we should change the logo too. Aside from English, the tiles have been adopted by a solid number of Wiktionarians. DAVilla 03:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Option 1

  1. Oppose option 1, in case that isn't clear. --Yair rand (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  2. Vehemently oppose. — Ungoliant (Falai) 07:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    Wow... I didn't know you took favicons so seriously... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    Those tiles give me the creeps. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC) This favicon fits the tile logo, which is not used by English Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Daniel 17:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Amgine/ t·e 19:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  6. Oppose —RuakhTALK 02:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  7. Oppose —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  8. Oppose used by fr.wikt. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 09:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Option 2

  1. Liliana likes this. -- Liliana • 00:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    If you really support our using that favicon, you should make it possible for us to do so, by assigning the copyright to WMF (or at least, explicitly stating that you are retaining the copyright for now, are not licensing it for any uses, and intend to assign the copyright to WMF should this option be selected). —RuakhTALK 18:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    It's actually an old revision of File:Wiktionary-ico-de.png, I just uploaded it here so I can embed it as an example. I doubt that an image of the string "" is copyrightable. -- Liliana • 19:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    Ugh, so you're saying you stole it. You should know better. I've now unstolen it for you. —RuakhTALK 20:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  2. . — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support —CodeCat 01:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Equinox ◑ 17:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support option 2. --Yair rand (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC) I support the favicon that approximately looks like this: "". It fits the logo currently used in English Wiktionary (), and it does not fit the tile logo ()used in some other Wiktionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Support Perdedora (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Permanently blocked user. -- Liliana • 17:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    Support I like option 2 lots. I don't like option 1, looks like a piece of toast with Wikipedia's favicon burned onto it. As for sticking with just using Wikipedia's favicon, I like that less than using no favicon at all. :_) 98.207.156.126 20:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    I struck this vote. Anonymous editors don't have the right to vote; please register an account and make at least 50 edits (shouldn't take too long). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    Support (That was me above. Sorry, didn't realize I wasn't logged in. As for "50 edits" I don't know if you mean here, there, or elsewhere, nor do I subscribe to the notion, so I'll just vote again here while signed in. I'm more a reader than editor of Wiktionary, so maybe you might consider my input in that light.) I like option 2 lots. I don't like option 1, looks like a piece of toast with Wikipedia's favicon burned onto it. As for sticking with just using Wikipedia's favicon, I like that less than using no favicon at all. :_) Rogerhc (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    You currently have 26 edits, so not quite enough, I'm afraid. I mean 50 edits in the main namespace of English Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    The policy is at ].​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support It ain't pretty, and it doesn't even look like an icon, but it's not making us look like Wikipedia in yer browser history. I'll support any favicon that's not worse than useless. —Michael Z. 2013-01-24 22:31 z
  9. Support. Better than using the same as Wikipedia. DAVilla 03:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  10. Support —RuakhTALK 02:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  11. Support until we change our logo :) This, that and the other (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  12. Support —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  13. Support Option 1 is taken by fr.wikt, which is also saved on my Mozilla's quickbar. So switching from the current one to Option 1 really isn't an improvement. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 09:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Option 2

  1. Oppose, because it's not the standard one, and there is no need for it. Lmaltier (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --WikiTiki89 04:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  3. It would be better to agree with other wikis not using the tile logo, like ru.wikt which is the biggest, on what icon to use. If they chose another one, it would look weird, and it's not a good idea to fragment Wiktionary's identity further. Moreover, this doesn't look ready to me, so it would require more time to prepare a final version, and more consultations would help finding mistakes (if any) early. --Nemo 13:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose (although this fits with the current logo, I'd like to see a cross-project discussion - especially with ru.WT) - Amgine/ t·e 19:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
    A cross-project discussion has nothing to do with it. This only applies to the English Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Maro 23:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Personally, I don't really care what favicon we use as long as it is unique, so I will vote only if needed to form a clear supermajority. @CodeCat, I didn't expressly forbid voting for multiple options, but just so you know, you're voting against yourself. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    I am? I wanted to make clear that I support either option explicitly in favour of the status quo. So it's not quite an abstain. —CodeCat 04:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    Well... I would think that any normal vote-closer would have to express each section's non-abstain votes as a fraction of the whole, and thus you would in fact be voting twice. To allay fears of dubious wikilegality, and solidify consensus in the face of the inevitable status-quoers or opposers, I think you should either choose one or wait it out like me. Naturally, however, the choice is yours to make. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    I think CodeCat's voting makes sense. The default outcome of this vote (if neither new favicon gets a majority of votes) is that the current favicon stays. If one of the new favicons gets a majority of the requisite size, it wins. If both get majorities, the one with the larger majority wins. (The possibility that both will have large but tied majorities exists whether people vote for more than one option or not.) - -sche (discuss) 05:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    I agree (w/-sche and CodeCat). IME, vote-closers do usually pay attention to these details. —RuakhTALK 17:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    I feel like my method of structuring the vote was extremely stupid. Now that 10 votes have been cast, 5 on each side, it may prove difficult for either to gain a supermajority. Also, how exactly would Yair's oppose vote be explicitly counted? Or is it oppose by default? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    I think that lack of support should be automatically be counted as oppose. Maybe you could change the structure so that each of the two icons has separate support/oppose/abstain options? I think it would be safe to do that with the vote already running, since the support votes that are currently there wouldn't change. The status quo option may not need an option of its own then, since it's implicit that opposing both means supporting the status quo. —CodeCat 03:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    Sure, but if both options pass, then what? Can we just choose the one with a higher percentage? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    I think not because the rules of the vote were changed during the vote: from unknown to ambiguous. Doesn't asking the previous question prove that? Probably the best thing would be to stop this vote and start a new one with the rules for counting the votes clearly stated. --biblbroksдискашн 22:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    Re: "I think that lack of support should be automatically be counted as oppose.": It should not. That is not how the vote is structured. The vote is structured as two subvotes, each having its own support and oppose section. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    It wasn't like that when I posted my message. —CodeCat 17:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    I see. The structure of the vote was modified in diff from 03:23, 11 January 2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    I think the current structure is fine, with two options and explicit opposes per option. But this was introduced after a couple of voters have voted. They should probably be notified, so that they can cast their explicit oppose vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    But if they don't respond and don't cast their oppose votes, how can we know whether they supported the original (assuming it was this) rules for counting, in which the option with more support votes would win, or the rules in which the higher percentage of support votes would win? --biblbroksдискашн 22:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    @Dan: Hey, for once I completely agree with you! I figured I wouldn't bother anybody yet, but before the vote ends, I intend to leave a message on the talkpage of everyone who voted support before the change and did not leave any oppose votes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Done Done —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    For the record, I am unabashedly siding with the majority to try to ensure that the current setup in which one favicon is the comfortable victor is not changed in the next two days. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  2. Abstain. Although I have given the arguments and icons presented in this vote a lot of thought, and actually kinda like the icon... in the end, I just don't care what favicon we use. - -sche (discuss) 03:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Decision

FWIW, twenty-one people (not including Jamesjiao, who voted after this decision was announced) voted in this horribly structured vote, as follows:

supported option 1 opposed option 1 did not vote on option 1 total
supported option 2 4 5 3 12
opposed option 2 4 1 0 5
did not vote on option 2 2 1 1 4
total 10 7 4 21

​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How should it have been structured, in the best of all possible worlds? I'd like to avoid having my next vote be called "horribly structured". Also, can somebody please deal with the concerns raised at Bugzilla? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I worded that too harshly. And in the end it turned out okay: the result was pretty much unambiguously in favor of the second option over both the status quo and the first option. But it could easily have ended ambiguously, which is why I don't think it was structured well. Ideally, we'd have decided on a new favicon before the vote and voted only to confirm our choice and show consensus to the good folks at WMF. Less ideally would be a structure that would yield an unambiguous result. I'm not sure what that would be ideally, but I think a Borda count (with three options corresponding to this vote's two and the status quo ante) would work.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, the point of this vote was to decide on which favicon to use. I like the Borda count idea; I hadn't thought of that. I think I'll try running a Borda count logo vote sometime soon. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Ugh, I would be very wary of Borda. Wikipedia tried to use it in the abortion article titles RFC, where it was explicitly opposed by several of the voters on the RFC, generally insulted as hard to use properly and as producing opaque results, and blamed for the RFC's failure to produce any result / determine any consensus. w:User:Homunq was the most eloquent critic of it, pointing out also how vulnerable it is to being gamed, and how vulnerable non-strategic teams are to being spoilt; I don't know know if Wiktionarians would try to game it, but then, you (Metaknowledge) did explicitly cast your favicon vote strategically. Would Condorcet work (though, like three people playing rock paper scissors, it doesn't always produce a winner)? Or simple runoff voting (which takes longer but is unambiguous)? - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
This vote is structured fine; it is not a horribly structured vote. The structure is "good enough" or "fairly good" even if imperfect rather than "bad" or even "very bad" AKA "horrible". If the vote ended ambiguously, another vote could be set up, less prone to the sort of ambiguity that would arise. Thumbs up to Μετάknowledge for creating the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Dan. @-sche: Runoff voting atkes longer with no real benefit, as it can just as easily lead to unclear results. Maybe a style where everyone could spend, say, at most 5 votes covering 3 options would work, so that people can allocate their votes as they see fit would be best. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
What about instant runoff voting? Tally the votes, eliminate the candidate with the fewest votes, and assign that candidate's voters' ballots to those voters' second choices; repeat as necessary. Wiktionary expects proposals to pass with some larger majority than the bare 51% many real-world elections use, so any vote in which one proposal gets 49% of votes and another gets 51% fails despite having a majority, but if the last round of runoff voting ends like that, I'd call it "no (sufficiently large) consensus to change the status quo" (especially in IRV, where it would mean the 51%-haver wasn't even the second choice of enough voters for it to be considered a consensus pick). The first-choice of the most voters can still lose in IRV (is that what you mean by "it can just as easily lead to unclear results"?)... bleh, every system has some drawback. - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Despite the so-called "tyranny of the majority", I think bowing to the "tyranny of the minority" is even worse. After all this, I'm actually more tempted just to have done with fanciness, but TBH we were lucky that this vote ended up as cleanly as it did, and the logo will doubtless draw even greater turnout. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Doing away with fanciness and running the vote the way we did might work (and did here, as it turned out), but then I think having Support/Oppose also for the status quo makes sense. (I think.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia