The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relicense to {{ PD-logo}}. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC) reply

File:Amiga Logo 1985.svg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pixel8 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Should this file be relicensed from copyright to PD-logo? I think this may be simple for upload on Commons. The text alone is almost certainly free, and I am not quite convinced that the two folded parallel lines with simple colorful gradients forming a checkmark are terribly difficult to replicate. The background is very easy to replicate if you know how to use a paint program (which I do). Gamingforfun ³⁶⁵ 18:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• PD-logo: The text is simple. The folded lines are essentially very simple geometrical shapes. The color choices are not original (they are arrange as they are on the spectrum of visual light, as one would see on a rainbow). The only slightly original choice here seems to be that the colors change where the lines fold, but overall it's not very significant. How easy it is to replicate is a bit of a red herring (the infamous File:Prince logo.svg can be replicated with a few strokes of a pen, but it's original enough to be above TOO) but here there simply aren't enough creative elements. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC) reply
• PD Logo Falls below threshold of originality, it is text with a simple italic typeface. The shapes are very simple, and the colors aren't original (it is just a color spectrum). -- Atomicdragon136 ( talk) 23:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC) reply

File:Allo picture.PNG ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bubblesorg ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free screenshot being used in the episode list section of a TV series article with no significant sourced commentary about the image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq ( talk) 02:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Yes and what about this idoit /info/en/?search=File:CROC_VRS_T-REX.JPG from this? /info/en/?search=List_of_Prehistoric_Park_episodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg ( talk • contribs)
  • The existence of other images that are non-compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria are not relevant to whether this image should be kept or removed, but now that you;ve pointed it out, I'll nominate it for deleton too. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Episode screenshot with no critical commentary in the episode list of the television series failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects ( talk) 04:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

File:Ningbo Rail Transit Logo No Text.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Siyuwj ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Keep This image should be in the public domain due to the simple geometry. However, Chinese Wikipedia deemed that it violates WP:NFCCP#8 and #9. Violates #8 since it used in templates and used on multiple articles without given significant increase of readers' understanding of the article. Violates #9 since it is been placed in templates. This is a continuous request of removal discussion based on the Chinese Wikipedia discussion of removing this logo on Feb. 12, 2018. There is another ongoing discussion on the Chinese Wikipedia to restore the logo image in low resolution, but the administrator thinks this logo does not meet United States's threshold of originality. -- VulpesVulpes825 ( Talk) 01:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete This image meets the threshold of originality both in China c:COM:TOO China and the US c:COM:TOO United States. -- Wcam ( talk) 12:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete The logo is an artistic reformation of Chinese character 甬 given this news, therefore it is not formed by simple geometry shape. According to the 道 case and other deletion cases involving artistic formation of Chinese calligraphy, this file should be copyvio. -- Siyuwj ( talk) 02:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, in the link you provided, all of the image is no longer accessible, and none of the words in the link you provided prove any of your points. In other word, without further evidence proving that the logo is based on characters, this logo should be kept due to simple geometry shape (forming like a track and one line go through half way as a train). Even if the logo is based on a character, it is still way different than the 道 case since the logo is way deformed due to artistic reasons, which the logo does not look like 甬 at all. The significant difference between 甬 and the logo makes it under the threshold of originality in both US and Chinese and thus should be kept rather than been deleted. -- VulpesVulpes825 ( Talk) (Please keep the whole conversation at where it starts) 22:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Then this reference do provide the design initiatives. Please DO NOT BASE ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS ON ILLUSIONS. If you think 道 is complex enough, just take a look at the simple LY case and other cases. - Siyuwj ( talk) 02:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

User:Siyuwj Please do not shout at me. It is extremely rude to do so. Since this is English Wikipedia, and the server is in United States, this image should be kept due to the simple geometry shape and not assemble the shape of 甬. It is also different than the LY case you mentioned since this logo do not assemble any typography in both Chinese and English. I am not base my arguments on illusion, this is simple fact that the logo only use three 45 degree lines and two vertical lines. Please see WP:PD#Fonts for more detail before continually yelling at me. -- VulpesVulpes825 ( Talk) (Please keep the whole conversation at where it starts) 00:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

This is obviously not simple shape. Firstly, I have provided RELIABLE SOURCES stating that the shape is based on the Chinese character with artistic idea above the threshold of originality, that is, to reshape the character into the shape of rail tracks, while you are still pretending being blind to these sources and insisting that the shape have nothing to do with the character. Secondly, the middle line from top-right to the bottom-left has a semicircle at its head, and ends with a curve at its end, which resembles the same structure in the Chinese character 甬, implying that it is not a simple shape but a specially-designed typography for this logo. - Siyuwj ( talk) 02:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Once again, it is unnecessary to bold text, which is equivalent to shouting at person. You said yourself that the logo is shaped as rail tracks. The currently argument you and I have is that I think this logo's character it originally based on is too distorted that it not longer clearly assemble the word 甬, especially the top part フ and the dot after フ, which is the main distinguishable visual component for this Chinese character. As for the reference, it seems that [1] and [2] is the same and the second link's description comes after the author signature. I am not sure pieces after the signature counts, which similar to cite advertisement after the article signature and count as a news article. It is indeed a blurry line. Even if the logo is assemble as 甬, it is still in public domain in United States where the server is located, as I explained before, due to simple geometry shape. I have copied the whole explanation from {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}, the bold text comes from the template, and is not from me. "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore is in the public domain in the United States because it consists entirely of typefaces, individual words, handwriting, slogans, simple geometric shapes, etc. These are not eligible for copyright alone in the United States because they are not original enough or otherwise ineligible (see the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (Third Edition), § 313 (pages 67-84)), and thus the image is considered to be in the public domain. See WP:PD#Fonts or   Wikipedia:Restricted materials for more information". I should have kept the discussion in Chinese Wikipedia and not here, it is my fault to let this happen. -- VulpesVulpes825 ( Talk) (Please keep the whole conversation at where it starts) 03:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• PD in the US: This reminds me a lot of the Discover It logo (see c:COM:TOO United States). The shape is based on a Chinese character. Yes, there could be an artistic process involved, but that artistic process may not be creative (in the copyright sense). Indeed, more than anything, elements that were not copyrighted in the first place have been removed from the Chinese character. The rest of the elements in the logo are very simple as well: the shape is essentially a circle with very minor irregularities. The Shading is very regular and the presence of shading itself does not push it about the threshold of originality (see the Discover It logo).

To clarify something Siyuwj said – "I have provided RELIABLE SOURCES stating that the shape is based on the Chinese character with artistic idea above the threshold of originality" – I don't read Chinese, but I very much doubt that these sources discuss the logo in the context of United States copyright law. Furthermore, I doubt they explicitly discuss the threshold of originality instead of simply "artistic" aspects. But to clear things up, it would help if someone could quote a relevant passage in translation. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Consider the “ Omega Globe Design” example also found in c:COM:TOO United States, this is very similar to the logo in question in that it is a circle with creative rearrangement and transformation of standard symbols. The logo in question shares more in common with the Omega Globe which according to court decisions is copyrightable than the Discover It logo. -- Wcam ( talk) 18:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply

This is the part that need more discussion -- whether the logo in question have complex elements in the logo or not. The logo in question only has three 45 degree lines and two vertical lines. The logo in question does not use complex elements like Omega Globe Design in c:COM:TOO United States. -- VulpesVulpes825 ( Talk) 00:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Here is the rough and quick translation of the second article User:Siyuwj, introduction about other logo choice is omitted.

We learned from the preparation committee that they have chosen three logos as finalist for Ningbo Transit. Please participate in the voting.
... (Direction of how to vote has been omitted)
(Written by Minjin Wu. Reported by Zhao Xu)
Related Links
First choice
"Qualite Ninbo", ...(The description of first choice is omitted since it is not the logo we are discussing about)

Second choice
"Wonderful Ningbo". The logo uses a dynamic "甬" Chinese character, explicitly expresses Ningbo Transit's local characteristics. It combines the track, the train head, and the "甬" Chinese character in to the logo. These elements are the characteristics of Public Transportation. Multiple tracks intersect with each other and expand indefinitely, which expresses Ningbo Transit as extensive and fast. All of these hinted that Ningbo will become more wonderful and energetic as Ningbo's transit system continues to grow.
The choice of background color is oceanic blue, which further expresses Ningbo's characteristics as a port city. The logo is overall eye-catching, dynamic, stylish and modern, which makes it easy to remember and spread.

Third choice
"Dancing Ningbo"...(The description of the third choice is omitted since it is not the logo we are discussing about)

-- VulpesVulpes825 ( Talk) 00:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Change license Meets threshold of originality in US and China, as it mostly consists of curved lines, which appears to be enough to be enough to meet threshold of originality. Even though it is supposed to resemble a Chinese character, it appears more like a shape rather than a Chinese character. The license however could be changed to fair use. -- Atomicdragon136 ( talk) 23:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Even if the license is changed to fair use, there are still issues regarding WP:NFCCP#8 and #9 violations. The main article Ningbo Rail Transit already uses another non-free logo image. -- Wcam ( talk) 03:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC) reply

I am changing my opinion to delete because it would be a redundant file of File:Ningbo Metro Logo.png which contains the text and icon of the logo. -- Atomicdragon136 ( talk) 03:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC) reply

File:Jagathisreekumar wiki.png ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Amoda33 ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

All over the net at all shapes and sizes https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&tbs=sbi:AMhZZitEpLVMMk-XRUG4xhYt3f1c4x2TnNSm5FnPPiZavUjcGk7DvBDGul4B8qQg8YNuktA0i6leKrC0fGspNCrv55b09AVuMEg_1v5Z3W7-NDJnDb9Y96M_1MyYbOyd6m1YL6cYOJI3wtUY5HSxaaf4L_1IWaUrenYCls1bcsZD4rRXq_1miTV9BiJhr-N5up7RRQegMHjuK0dse2Y-xWa0mUk7SXeAZLExGt7DErQaPVs35FwPFkiIawaTpBnR542RB1SJ834vvVJm1dAN4kOJinT6tRDAzlBjexgT3vEvFTZ5FbXt0XRj9BE0747ZgvmMEmWiaEX2uBWbRcKaPwuDnjik75TZ4DCoJQ&ei=5Hd6XKOmJpyM1fAPoL6reA&start=50&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwijqLG_u-PgAhUcRhUIHSDfCg84KBDy0wMIeA&biw=1644&bih=946 Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 12:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC) reply

File:Hermann Joseph Muller.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Gobonobo ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable nonfree image. No evidence that this image is governed by Swedish law, that the image was even photographed in Sweden, or that it was first published in 1946. The image was likely provided by or on behalf of the person depicted and originally published in their home country (in this case the US). Since a demonstrably free image is now available, this image of dubious copyright status is no longer necessary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 23:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.