Commons:Deletion requests/File:WDW New Fantasyland logo.jpg
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.
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)