This one is my favourite. Round shape evokes the Earth, three lines vaguely resemble a human figure with outstretched arms. Not too busy. Clayoquot (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this but am a bit irritated by the empty centre. Perhaps put something in there (what?) or play around with different ratios of inner/ outer radius? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most visually appealing to me right now, but its arrangement is a bit too reminiscent of the Olympic rings (despite the difference in numbers), which distracts. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this but am a bit irritated by the empty centre. Perhaps put something in there (what?) or play around with different ratios of inner/ outer radius? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one a lot -- it speaks to the assemblage of opportunities we have, and brings a nice creative twist to the logo :) Sadads (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one, but I don't think it's ethical to create identical logos. It really looks like this logo of SDG WATCH Europe which I'm very sure it's a UN SDGs sub-brand.-- CEllen (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, looks like someone had the same idea as me. I found inspiration from c:File:UN SDG Logo.png. I don't think circular cutouts meets the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, there is a limit to how original circular formations can be done and how it can be placed to establish originality. - Premeditated (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it wasn't the same one with different colours. Now I noticed the other one isn't even rounded but isosceles trapezoids. @Clayoquot: The other SDG logos are actually under a free license. Ainali (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but even if the UN doesn't claim copyright over the SDG logo, they have published guidelines around its use that say, in effect, "please don't create something that looks a lot like this logo but isn't this logo". In the spirit of being courteous, it would be good to follow those guidelines. Clayoquot (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a totally fair and good point. I'll make a note on the talk page and ping everyone that voted on this and Proposal C and suggest they are removed from the vote. Ainali (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the universal symbol for recycling as described in many languages of Wikipedias listed at d:Q219534#sitelinks-wikipedia. ♻ ♻ ♻ There are three parts in this logo which we could change to the three wiki colors. I have no image editing skills so I am unable to change the colors myself for this proposal. I know our group's scope, "sustainable development" is bigger than "recycling" but if we used this logo we already communicate deep ideas which can work for us. Blue Rasberry (talk)16:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The text can be easily separated from the logo; logo without the text can be used in a polyglot environment (unlike the logo with the text embedded in Proposal E)
I think this one looks friendlier than the above one and also more balanced. I do think though that the arrow gap at the bottom still looks too off center. If you fixed that, I think it would look more harmonic. HDothiduc (WMF) (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in comparison to A, there is interaction between the different parts, which could be interpreted in the recycling way (as per option F) or the circular economy more generally, or in terms of different communities coordinating, or the reusability of our content and software, and in various other ways
in comparison to B, the design does not evoke other logos prominently
in comparison to D, it is less busy
in comparison to F, the design does not evoke a narrower meaning
I think the logo somehow projects the sustainable development and the gaps in between depicts work which is undone and it give me the feeling the wikimedian/wikipedians can reduce the gap. Rajeeb(talk!)15:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=link}
