Diese Seite dient zur Wahl des neuen Wiktionary-Logos. Die zur Wahl stehenden Logos wurden zwischen dem 19.5.2009 und dem 31.7.2009 ausgewählt.
Es gibt zwei Wahlrunden.
In Runde Eins können die Wähler ihren Favoriten sowie weitere Kandidaten auswählen und diese in die Markierung unten eintragen. Die Wahl findet vom 7.12.2009 bis zum 31.12.2009 statt.
Falls kein Logo die absolute Mehrheit erreicht, werden danach die beiden Logos mit den meisten Stimmen aus Runde Eins in einer Stichwahl zur Abstimmung gestellt. Runde Zwei wird vom 1.1.2010 bis zum 31.1.2010 stattfinden.
Nach dieser Wahl wird in jeder Wiktionary-Sprachversion eine Abstimmung durchgeführt, ob das gewonnene Logo akzeptiert wird oder nicht. Sollten weniger als 60% der lokalen Wiktionaries das Sieger-Logo bestätigen, wird keines der lokalen Wiktionaries das Logo benutzen.
Die vorherige Abstimmung über das Wiktionary-Logo führte zum Teilchenlogo am 2006-11-01T23:10:19. Die englischsprachige Variante des Teilchenlogos ist weiter unten auf der rechten Seite zu sehen. Folgende Wiktionarys verwenden weiterhin das Teilchenlogo: ar, co, el, et, fa, fr, it, ko, li, lt, ms, nl, oc, scn, simple, sq, sv, tr, uk, vi, wo, yi und zh. kl wird es einsetzen. Die Nutzer des englischsprachigen Wiktionarys waren mit diesem Logo jedoch nicht einverstanden und starteten am 2009-03-26T00: 29:40 eine neue Abstimmung.
a tastefully coloured version would also be good, but Wiktionary is not Scrabble(r) so I have never supported the tile logo. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The other logo looks barbarically horrible! It looks like a childish toy; this one looks serious - An elegant and professional looking book as a logo, rather than som' coffee coloured Scrabble pieces. MrGulli
i agree that the other one is definitely not it. Wikit2009 01:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Support - The other logo looks unprofessional. This one, while generic, is marginally better than the other one. Shushruth 01:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what tiles have to do with a dictionary specifically -- the other logo could be for any Wiki project. BirdValiant 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Devin Murphy 90 05:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I would rather the new logo not feature a book of any kind because Wiktionary is not a book but a web site. But if it's going to be the "book" or the "tiles" I prefer the book because its more professional looking then the tiles. Also it gives a nice wink to the Wikipedia logo and besides the tiles look cheep to me, even a little like their made out of plastic. As well this is an improvement over the cornet logo. Though if we do use this one we'll have to make some variations with the writing and puzzle pieces being on the opposite pages of the book for the languages that write from right to left.
It certainly has to be revised and simplified, but it's surely a better option compared to the tiles, since the latter does not quite resemble Wikipedia's or the other Wikimedia projects' logos at all. I was favorable of something more colorful and closer to the MetaWiki logo, as was my vote on the first round, but out of these two options, the most professional one is clearly the book logo. Krystoffer 01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I would rather have something that looks like a dictionary than the more abstract collection of tiles. Rchandra 02:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
-- "Tiles" isn't a bad logo, Tiles is just a bad logo for a dictionary. OTOH, with this logo, concerns about contrast, exact language visible on the page upon extreme magnification, etc. can all be fixed by minor tweaks. It looks classy, and the fundamental concept behind it -- a serious dictionary -- is correct. - RedWordSmith 03:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
beautiful logo :) --Mintz0223 03:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Beautiful design. It looks great from up close or far away, on both small and large screens. --Nintend06 04:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The other option doesn't send the message of "dictionary" very well, in fact it's quite vague. This one looks more professional and gets the message across. It is also more recognisable in a monochrome format. Nevertheless, there are still a few improvements that I could suggest, for example (slight) simplification (especially of the left hand side), vectorisation and a more pronounced puzzle piece effect (larger individual pieces). Transparent 6lue 05:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
More professional looking, but it does need work. For example the top is too bright and hard on the eyes. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This is clearly more visually pleasing. I would support making allowance for the text (the text within the book) to be rewritten on Wiktionaries whose primary languages don't use the Latin script, as long as it was tastefully done. However, the text is fairly small, so it's quite possible no one would feel like doing it. Atelaes 06:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The "jigsaw" needs to have fewer pieces and bolder lines so as to be clearly visible at the size it's going to be used on every page. But this is definitely a solid design.--Father Goose 20:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
For most people (those who write from left to right), the left side represent the past and the right is the future. My advice is thus to flip the icon to show a constructing book rather than a book blowing away (but that's ok too). Jona 20:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
For this one (professional looking, dictionary-like, elegant, remind Wikipedia), although there is still room for improvement (scale...) ; and against the tiles for several reasons (variability when one unique, common logo is needed, W centered, looks too much like toys, too fragmented, messy). Darkdadaah 22:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Wonderful. A nice, serious, true dictionary.TrainmasterCRC 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not like the Scrabble tiles. When people think of a dictionary, they may think of a big book. This logo also implements the Wikipedia-style puzzle pieces as one of the pages which represents the 'wiki' part of it. In my mind much better than the Scrabble tiles logo. Retro00064 05:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The "tiles" logo makes the Wiktionary project look like a child's toy. This version is professional, visually appealing, and consistent in style with the Wikipedia logo. «D. Trebbien (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
ChristianH 23:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Achei mó barato esse logo.
It looks more serious and professional. --Alexander Gamauf 16:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
— It's main advantages it that it's not a tily sort of thing. I would not have picked this but, as has been said, it is a very professional and serious image and is better than what we have now. Saga City 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I like it better than the other one. Samwb123 23:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yay for this logo. --Philippe 01:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
--This is better one--Legolas1024 04:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Primarily because the idea of a logo that has elements changing (allowing modifications to the central tile) concerns me. The Wikipedia puzzleball doesn't change, neither should a Wiktionary logo. Quiddity 07:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You have totally wrong, because this logo should be adapted for right to left languages, and the Wikipedia logo have some languages variants. Otourly 13:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I prefer this one. --Antissimo 07:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Совершенно согласен с тем, что сказал ЧарОдей 19:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC); добавлю, что кроме того у вэб-логотипов одна из функций — быть ярлычком (favicon) и при этом различимо читаться. Вариант с "маджонгом" при уменьшении до иконки превращается не понятно во что Krotkov 11:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The other logo is already used on plenty of the foreign language Wiktionaries. I haven't seen this one used anywhere, so I am most definitely going for this open-book logo! --LUUSAP 21:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
OrGuttman 22:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Sabbath Shalom!
Yeah, sorry, I mistyped, though I believe this logo really represents the vision for Wiktionary. I meant to say that the logo represents the comprehensive nature of Wiktionary, and looks more pleasing to the eye. --Apollo1758 23:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice logo! The the readability of the text cloud use some improvement though.--Koman90 (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The colors of the alternative are parched and old, whereas the "open book" appropriately represents the values of Wikitionary. --Ktzqbp 06:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
In the small version it is a little bit difficult to recognize what the left side of the book is showing, but the other logo does not cause any identification to a dictionary for me. I also like the elegance of this one. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cecil (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
While I have some reservations about the ease of internationalizing this logo, I feel it looks more professional (read: less child-like) than the subtle ad for Hasbro/Mattel currently in use on some wikis.--RAult 09:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC
--Danilo Andres Ramirez 03:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC) No juzgo por los logos, ya que ambos son buenos y de excelente diseño, pero este logo es lo más completo que se ve de acuerdo a diccionario de significado.
Much more professional than the tiles, however I agree it needs tweaking for simplification and localisation. --Auk 05:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The other logo feels too childish and toy-like; while this is more dry and gray I think it's a better choice (even though a bit more color and a place for other languages' nationalization of the text would be welcome) Ewino 15:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Love it. If anything the rest of the puzzle pieces should have characters and the logo have an over-all clean up to allow for cleaner rendering at different sizes. Strong opposition to the "scrabble tiles" logo. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 20:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This has the basis of a good logo for a project that aspires to be a serious reference work. The alternative is the basis of a logo for a toy shop or high street low-brow bookstore. --MegaSloth 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Not fond of it, but much better than the scrabble thing. Loqueelvientoajuarez 01:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This logo is neutral to all languages. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mzsabusayeed (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid it isn't, because typical Japanese dictionary is written from top to bottom. In such language it may represent encycopedias. --Aphaia 19:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of User:Mxn's false assertion that "potential for confusion is low," when so many people in this community recognize it as being similar - it still is a perfectly valid reason for my to dislike the other logo. Mxn's vote-tampering here is extremely curious. The fact that I prefer this logo over the other, is the purpose of casting my vote. Perhaps User:Mxn's preferences should be ignored in light of his penchant for tampering. It's not like this is the first time anyone has discussed the similarity. --Connel MacKenzie 19:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I like this one much better, though I think that it should be modified to show the 'puzzle page' more clearly --Whytecypress 22:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Simply much much better than both current logos. Not perfect, but a definite improvement. Amalthea 22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
radiates professionalism, not amateurism. oscar 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Simple and close to WP's log o spirit. Anierin 04:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Simply like it because of the professionalism shown in the logo. --ஜெ.மயூரேசன் 09:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Symbol of knowledge over tiles...--Flamur Kasa 09:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This one is good, but too detailed. Suggestion: take only the top right corner of the image, so that the top of the right column on the left page is visible and the top right book corner; then down to just below those puzzle pieces that have letters in them. The text underneath can stay. This way it’s still recognized as a book but it’s basically double the size. Geke 15:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Ark Approves - [en] Looks more like a dictionary for me. And the puzzle section is a great plus. - [es] Me parece más a un diccionario. Y la parte del rompecabezas es un gran agregado. - ArkBlitz 17:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Preferable, and conveys the idea of a legitimate dictionary "in the making" much better than the tiles do. I also like the emphasis on the book. I do think it needs improvement, and I think Engelman's latest version is somewhat better. The puzzle-pieces are larger and more visible in that version. Nevertheless, I think this is the best overall proposal as it emphasizes creating an organized final product, which the puzzle pieces do not. The Fiddly Leprechaun 18:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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. Cbrown1023talk 20:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
J’aime le fait de représenter une lettre de chacun des différents alphabets. --Miacix le lionceau (d) 03:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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. GlacierWolf 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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. Logomaniacchat? 15:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Pourquoi changer ? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Granboubou (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Because of diversity of languages. --Grenadine 01:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
More "logo like", would be easier branding wise --Voltin 01:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
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) ~
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)
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) ~