Wikimedians for Sustainable Development/Logo

Following the discussion, this was a vote for the logo of the user group to be.

Dates:

6 December – 24 December 2019: Voting started, new entries are accepted during the vote

The winning proposal is Proposal K!

Proposal A

Support for A

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]
~~Ainali (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
Jane023 (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on A

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]
Add comment here

Proposal B

Support for B

Sign name here

Comments on B

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 agree it looks too much like the Olympic rings. Clayoquot (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the Olympic rings it reminds me of, but also symbols like Borromean rings, triquetra, biohazard, three crescents Wiccan symbol, Snoldelev horns, and the Triple Horn of Odin (similar to Snoldelev horns and three crescents). / Achird (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal C

Support for C

Siebrand (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on C

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 a variant of the 'official' SDG logo, albeit with different colors. The UN might not like it. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Huikeshoven: I agree with the above comment. -- CEllen (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal has been removed from the voting.

Proposal D

Support for D

Sign name here

Comments on D

Based on C, but with 15 fields instead (same number as in File:Wikimedia logo family complete-2013.svg) which makes all colours repeat the same number of times. Also makes a black and white version more distinguashable. Ainali (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add comment here

Proposal E

Support for E

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]
Dorien Hoogewegen
Denise Jansen WMNL (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Husky (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Grijz (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)~~ removal makes sense[reply]
Mx Lucy (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Jane023 (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)~~ striking my name out due to talkpage request[reply]

Comments on E

@Premeditated: I would vote for this if it was remade with angular "cut-outs" instead of the straight one this has. Ainali (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i like it very much but I will use it for something else, the message is not clear visually to me.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:50, 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]
- Oh, I had not realized that. @Premeditated: do you know if that logo is under a free license? Ainali (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Darn, I like it but the point of a logo is to have it be unique. Nobody free-licenses logos unless they do it accidentally. Clayoquot (talk) 21:54, 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 proposal has been removed from the voting.

Proposal F

Support for F

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]
Good I was going to put it here myself. Sorry i have no time to prepare it, WSC2019 ends this week.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one, it really connects our initiative. Marajozkee (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kattiel (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sign name here

Comments on F

@Bluerasberry: Like this? Ainali (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ainali: Yes! Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: I like this one too, it really connects our initiative. Marajozkee (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is associates more with recycling than with sustainable development. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MarjonW: My favorite! No guesswork needed, in one look you can see this is about Wikimedia and about sustainability
I'm not a fan of this one. This logo is about recycling, and sustainability is about far more than recycling. Clayoquot (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be more effective without the black stroke on the arrows --Carlinmack (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal G

Support for G

--MCTundershadow (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sign name here

Comments on G

Add comment here

Proposal H

Support for H

Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sign name here

Comments on H

Shows clearly the Sustainable and the Development
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)
Shows some dynamism
Add comment here

Proposal I

Support for I

Sign name here

Comments on I

Add comment here

Proposal J

Support for J

--Iamamz3 (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--Carlinmack (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sign name here

Comments on J

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]

Proposal K

Support for K

--Carlinmack (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this proposal combines the good things from Proposal A and Proposal F. / Achird (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like this best
- because
  - 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
  - in comparison to G, it is less busy
  - in comparison to H, it is less busy
  - in comparison to I, the point is less sharp
  - in comparison to J, the bottom gap is centred
- -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rajeeb ^(talk!) 15:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ainali (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sign name here

Comments on K

This is rotated such that the bottom gap is centered --Carlinmack (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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]