ეს გვერდი განკუთვნილიავიქსიკონის ახალი ლოგოს არჩევისათვის. ლოგოს კანდიდატების განხილვა და საუკეთესოს არჩევა მოხდება 19.5.2009–დან 31.7.2009–მდე.
მომავალი ლოგოს არჩევნები შედგება ორი ნაწილისაგან.
პირველი ნაწილი:
პირველი ნაწილის დროს ამომრჩეველს შეუძლია წამოაყენოს თავისი ფავორიტი ლოგო, ან შექმნას ახალი ვარიანტი და წამოაყენოს ქვემოთ. პირველი ნაწილი ჩატარდება 7.12.2009–დან 31.12.2009–მდე.
Runde Zwei:
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 für das Logo des Wiktionary führte zur gefliesten Logo auf 2006-11-01T23:10:19. Die englische Variante des gefliesten Logo ist auf der unten rechts. ar, co, el, et, fa, fr, it, ko, li, lt, ms, nl, oc, scn, simple, sq, sv, tr, uk, vi, wo, yi, und zh immer noch die gefliesten Logo. kl wird es einsetzen. Englisch wiktionary Nutzer nicht einverstanden mit dem gefliesten Logo auf 2009-03-26T00: 29:40, so schufen sie die erneuten Abstimmung.
I love this logo. It captures Wiktionary perfectly, and fits in with the other projects' logos far better than the Scrabble tiles (which I have always disliked). Dendodge16:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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 would have preferred "Stylised Book with Stylised Entry", but this isn't bad. However, it is crucial that we lose the text underneath. Urhixidur03:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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.[უპასუხე]
But we'll REALLY have to do something with its lowscale version and favicon. I think something taken from IPA could do the job. Peleg11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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. Krystoffer01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
-- "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. - RedWordSmith03:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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 6lue05:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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. Atelaes06:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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 Goose20:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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). Jona20:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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). Darkdadaah22:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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. Retro0006405:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Это изображение - книга более полно отображает назначение и смысл нашего словаря, чем, например, набор для игры в маджонг. Также оно больше и красивее проработано --ЧарОдей19:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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)[უპასუხე]
— 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 City17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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. Quiddity07:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
You have totally wrong, because this logo should be adapted for right to left languages, and the Wikipedia logo have some languages variants. Otourly13:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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 Krotkov11:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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! --LUUSAP21:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
It is too detailed, but the other one is not detailed enough, it looks serious, which is good, also other good things about it: The smallcaps. - Francis Tyers11:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
This is more looking like a logo, and fitting in with the puzzle-style of Wikipedia logo. The notion of a dictionary gets across better here.--Paracel6322:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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. --Apollo175823:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
The colors of the alternative are parched and old, whereas the "open book" appropriately represents the values of Wikitionary. --Ktzqbp06:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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 (განხილვა) 08:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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
Much more professional than the tiles, however I agree it needs tweaking for simplification and localisation. --Auk05:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Instantly recognisible as a dictionary from image and also "puzzle piece" reminiscent of wikipedia, so seperate but similar natures can be seen. Shadowmaster1303:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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) Ewino15:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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)[უპასუხე]
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. --MegaSloth23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
I'm afraid it isn't, because typical Japanese dictionary is written from top to bottom. In such language it may represent encycopedias. --Aphaia19:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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 MacKenzie19:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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. Geke15:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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. - ArkBlitz17:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
This is nice. Not very simple, but I like how it matches Wikipedia's puzzle pieces theme. Definitely preferable to the tiles. Fyrius11:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Samit Boonyaruk It so beautiful 20:18, 25 January 2010 (GMT +7)
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 Leprechaun18:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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)[უპასუხე]
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)[უპასუხე]
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. Cbrown1023talk20:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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 — NickK02:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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. Yenx03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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. GlacierWolf03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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.unreadablereadable--Béotien lambda07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
I like both, but this one is my favourite, though this is a problem that the roman alphabet is in the middle… I suppose we are voting for the concept? --Eiku09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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 Polansky10:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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. Ai123814:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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)[უპასუხე]
-- The other logo looks nice, but is way to detailed. Hope that this logo will be redrawed though, the Korean 말 in the upper right is not even upright to it's box. -- IGEL18:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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. --Nemo20:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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)[უპასუხე]
Support Même si l’autre semble plus « professionnel », celui-ci fait mieux ressortir l’aspect multilingue et saute mieux aux yeux, je trouve. — SniperMaské21:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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. Geekdiva22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
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)~ TheSun02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC) ~[უპასუხე]
More logo-like, and with a clearer representation of the global aspects. The dictionary could do as well, but would be much better if it was stylized to less detail. E.g. make the pieces bigger.--Riyaah17:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
More like a logo, distinctive and stylized, fits with the other logos of Wikimedia projects, and expresses very well the universality of the project. And even the idea of a book doesn't seem necessary to me when representing a dictionary (books are just the material used for dictionaries until now, but not any more), whereas letters like pieces to build words are a very good idea in my opinion. - Cos19:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
The book is too detailed and colourless, although either of these logos would be an improvement over the current en.wiktionary logo. The argument that the tile logo is anglo-centric because it places W in the middle is poppycock for two good reasons: 1. Is the URL of all the sites not wiktionary.org? 2. Other languages are free to change the centre tile, like the Greek one. — Internoob (Wikt. | Talk | Cont.) 01:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Well, I'm not really in love with either design. But the tiles are definitely better than the dictionary with the corner ripped out (every librarian's nightmare). Facts70707:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
I prefer the latter because it looks recognisable; having a book/ dictionary as a logo isn't exactly original, but rather quite vague. But... to be honest, I liked the old/ current one better. (or the lack thereof. It looks snazzy ^_^) Anyhoo, go team! Alzwded09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
I guess this one gives a more precise idea of what the Wiktionaries are, while the open book shown above the left column is rather ambiguous: it shows a book, not a international, multilingual dictionary. Kąġi Oȟąko22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Support Though question. The other candidate is newer, prettier, more modern... But I'm pro this one. It's already an SVG file, it's still the logo for some wiktionaries (french one for example), it's more easily scalable, and it's easier to make a suitable favicon from it. --AglarEdain13:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
I like it because despite of its simplicity it drives better the meaning of the wiktionary (I mean, I agree with a lot of you). Vichango21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Because this is not as much culturally biased as the other one. However, I don't like the brown color of the tiles, I think a silver version would blend better with the colors of the site. Qorilla16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
I really like this logo, and I hope it wins. It's cheerful, colorful, yet professional, easier on the eye, scalable, and it's the logo that some multilingual users are already familiar with. I don't get the point of this, though -- this logo was chosen last time and clearly this is an effort to choose a different logo. Can't people just write up a list of requirements (including the reasons for this voting round), announce the contest on all the WikiMedia sites so artists can take note, give them some time, and then have a voting round? MirekDve17:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Support I like the simplicity of the other one BUT I am voting for this one because it is more global, the other one is English/roman letter centric. This one is more global for our global community. Cheers, Nesnad18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
I hate the colors and the gradient. I hate the choice of symbols. I hate that every Wiktionary has a different center tile. To me, a line drawing isn't realistic enough and the lack of shadowing makes the characters look painted instead of engraved. Overall, the concept is okay but I hate the logo itself. Despite the absence of initiative or like-mindedness or any sign thereof, I'm unrealistically optimistic that someone will fix it so I don't puke on sight every time. Support.DAVilla00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Simpler and maybe not as refined as the other logo, but works better as a logo because of it, will not look out of place when used together with the logos of sister projects.KTo28823:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
A dictionary on the web doesn’t have to look like a book, because, well it’s not a book. The tiles are more suitable for a logo and are really international. --Sultan Rahi13:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
It means more than other. --Turhangs 16:12 , 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This logo is distinctive (the other looks generic, like it could be any book) -- different from any other I've seen. Keep this one. --BlackJar7217:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
It looks a bit like Scrabble tiles, and that is a game that heavily relies upon dictionaries. :-) I like this logo, and looking back at the earlier proposals, I think it is the best presented so far. We don't need another book. WikiBooks, WikiJunior, WikiSource, and even Wikipedia are all book-based real-world items. We get that. What makes it different from a paper book? I think the tiles in multiple languages signify that difference. It's a global project coming together to define words and concepts in a new format that transcends books. Additionally, I despise the monochromatic (black and white) look of the book. If we are forced to have a book, at least make it colorful. B&W is so 1978 monochrome monitor style; we're in 2010 where 3D movies like Avatar are the standard. Don't pick an obsolete and outdated style as the logo for a wonderful project. Please! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “c” ) 11:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
The other logo could be for Wikibooks and does not convey an idea of a dictionnary. This one does at least a little bit. — Calimo17:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Although the first one with a dictionary looks more restrained outwardly, this logo appears to be more suitable for such a project and reveals its essence.--Microcell18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Unlike the other logo, this logo at least exudes some level of linguistic diversity which is visible when the logo is scaled down to 150 pixels. In addition, this logo at least upholds the idea that Wiktionary is a flexible entity (what I see from the tiles) which can be rearranged to suit the interests of its readers. --Sky Harbor09:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
To add to everyone's previous comments, I like the idea that the logo can be 'personalised' for each Wiktionary that uses it. It took me a while to decide, but I do think this is clearly the better logo. Ephemeronium12:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Neither of them look great... why not ask some ppl on one of those art sites like deviantart.com - there are some high quiality artists there. --Boy.pockets12:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Must admit this is more clear than the book logo. Unfortunately neither of the logos capture the idea of the website very well. --Jyril12:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
I changed my vote after seeing that the 1st one was completely unreadable at small size (or as favicon). Also after reading comments above: it is clearly advocating LTR alphebetic scripts, and does not look multilingual at all. The puzzle pieces are also almost invisible. Yes the second has poor colors, but it is still the one that is easily recognized, and it fits very well with any local caption written in any script below it. Final note: the "open book" bitmap image does not scale at all in big sizes or in small sizes, or it will look very blurry : this is already the case with the prefered size which is twice smaller than its natural size: this would mean multiplying the bitmap versions for various sizes. (The "tiles" logo can scale well at both small and big sizes because it's a SVG, even if it can still be enhanced graphically, with more previse contours, a more natural 3D engaving of letters, and more natural shadows, perspectives and lighting, even when using SVG). verdy_p04:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
This logo of the tiles is much more pleasant to look at. How about considering a combination of the two, with the book having an image of these tiles on the right-hand page as if it were an illustration of the definition for the word "Wiktionary." Thanks for the chance to participate! --Erredmek03:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
The book I think has too many problems with it, chiefly being that it won't reduce especially well. All the WMF logos work very well as stand-alone icons. (plus, the puzzle piece is more of a Wikipedia theme than Wiktionary's) EVula// talk // ☯ //06:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
um, the one with the book is more "professionnal" indeed but unfortunately is completely unrecognizable in small size and far to complex fora logo... and is styleless, expressionless. So, even if this one is not perfect, it still fit better.Cebelab13:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Road Wizard17:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC) The book icon doesn't scale well and does not seem to represent multiple languages. I am not overly keen on the colours used in the tiles, but it remains recognisable at different scales and displays multiple scripts.[უპასუხე]
It could still be improved, nevermind it's matching better the spirit of Wiktionary. The other one could fit with any multi lingual dictionary--Givrix22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Happy, vivid, and clearly better suited to stand for an internet project i.e. -- by nature -- a more loosely coordinated set of individual pieces of information than "book", which is something planned and complete Bartteks23:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
--Use:Cheng michael January 23, 2010 - Love the concept, but the color of the tiles is a bit odd. Maybe change it to grey or white to better suit the overall layout?
A book is a means for conveying information. It has no more to do with a dictionary than a novel or encyclopedia does. A good logo captures the essence of its subject matter, with as little detail as possible. This logo comes closer to such a realization; and, I think it does so quite well. Writing a dictionary is like figuring out a puzzle. The pieces are characters of a language. These pieces are constructed into words - entities that carry meaning in a language - and the big picture shows the relationship these words have with each other. This logo cleverly represents an international dictionary of many languages. It has colour. It is memerable. And, most importantly, it is simple. - The Aviv06:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
Excellent professional looking image. I like the fact that it consists of 'blocks' with characters/letters from different languages. They perfectly mirror the goal of wiktionaries - to translate words in every language into every other language. Jamesjiao11:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
(if I'm allowed to vote on this one; I've been contributing to Wikimedia projects for years, but more to Wikipedia and Commons than to Wiktionary). Book logo is evocative of nothing. QuartierLatin196815:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
in regard of linguistic neutrality. For languages written from top to bottom, the other candidate can hardly represent a typical dictionary. (Rather than a special kind of encyclopedia which may include a left-to-right writing, e.g. math formulae. --Aphaia19:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
I voted for it in the first round and I vote for it again here. It conforms to what a lot of the other wiki icons look like which is a plus. Valley2city‽22:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[უპასუხე]
