Commons:Deletion requests/File:WDW New Fantasyland logo.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:WDW_New_Fantasyland_logo.jpg[edit]
DR to decide if this qualifies as a simple logo (I had deleted it as copyvio, but meanwhile LtPowers marked it as textlogo, so there is doubt about it) Darwin Ahoy! 14:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I speedy deleted this file based in this: File:ShoppingBarão.jpg, which was even simpler that this logo, though had the same 3D effect on the letters.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- That user was claiming own work, and had uploaded an entire series of copyrighted mall images and logos. I am not claiming own work and have not uploaded an entire series of copyvios. I can't blame Martin for deleting it given the uploader's track record, but I do strongly object to its use as a precedent in this case. Powers (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- The question is if this qualifies as a simple logo, your track record doesn't matter here (I hope!). And there are much more precedents, the MTV logo is one of them.-- Darwin Ahoy! 01:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- That user was claiming own work, and had uploaded an entire series of copyrighted mall images and logos. I am not claiming own work and have not uploaded an entire series of copyvios. I can't blame Martin for deleting it given the uploader's track record, but I do strongly object to its use as a precedent in this case. Powers (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- You mean this logo? Powers (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, I mean this logo.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- They're virtually identical. The fact that someone tagged one with a FUR doesn't mean we can't host it on Commons; note that someone else tagged it with a request to be converted to SVG and uploaded to Commons. Was this particular image discussed anywhere, and a decision arrived at that it meets the threshold of originality? Powers (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- i marked it at Wiki-en as now in Commons. The point is that this logo is 3D, and that is usually not accepted. I've never seen a 3D logo accepted as "simple logo".-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I said virtually identical, not completely; they're actually two different logos. Anyway, for 3D text, try Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hercules 1998 Intertitle.png -- note that the discussion was about the background, and no one even questioned the text, which clearly has a 3D effect. Moreover, the "3D" on the Fantasyland logo consists primarily of a drop shadow; that's not much. The "M" in the MTV logo is more 3D than that, and that was accepted. Powers (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hercules 1998 Intertitle.png, and I find it simply unbelievable that it survived two DRs unharmed, since IMO it is obviously not a simple logo. Very obviously indeed. So it is not a good example to take as reference, for the lettering or for anything else. In fact, I placed it under discussion at the new VPC, singe its so egregiously not a case of textlogo.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I said virtually identical, not completely; they're actually two different logos. Anyway, for 3D text, try Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hercules 1998 Intertitle.png -- note that the discussion was about the background, and no one even questioned the text, which clearly has a 3D effect. Moreover, the "3D" on the Fantasyland logo consists primarily of a drop shadow; that's not much. The "M" in the MTV logo is more 3D than that, and that was accepted. Powers (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- i marked it at Wiki-en as now in Commons. The point is that this logo is 3D, and that is usually not accepted. I've never seen a 3D logo accepted as "simple logo".-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- They're virtually identical. The fact that someone tagged one with a FUR doesn't mean we can't host it on Commons; note that someone else tagged it with a request to be converted to SVG and uploaded to Commons. Was this particular image discussed anywhere, and a decision arrived at that it meets the threshold of originality? Powers (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, I mean this logo.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- You mean this logo? Powers (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
