Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo - 2006.svg
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.
The Windows logo meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. See the colour degradation and curves in squares. See the 3D effect in edges. Albertojuanse (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- We just had this discussion: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Windows_flag.svg. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- The circumstances didn't change at all. Per Commons:DELREQ#Appeal, you should contact the debate-closing admin before renominating. --Ysangkok (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Keep Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows flag.svg established that the object of nomination in fact does not meet the threshold requirements and I think it was right. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete Has anyone could describe it with simple words? This are not even squares, the 3d effect, colour degradation... Saludos. Albertojuanse (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
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.
As far as I know, gradients exceed the threshold of originality. Thoughts? -FASTILY 05:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Same for me, Delete, I could not even draw it: radial gradients, 3D effect, etc. Regrets. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertojuanse (talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The gradient is a standard radial gradient; can create with Paint.NET in ten seconds each. By hand, it'd be problematic, but again, trying to reproduce just anything with an ill-suited alternative (e.g. a crayon work with watercolor) is problematic. The effect "emboss" (by mistake called "3D effect") is also a mainstay of all graphic software. It is yet easier by hand.
- IMHO, what is most complex in this image is the shape. But, we've already decided on that... times and again. Basically, I'm growing very irritated by seasonally recurring DRs for Windows logos. Please made a decision and stick with it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Complex image manipulations are an easy task with editing programs such as Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. However, my question is not whether gradients are easy to create, but rather whether they legitimately fall under the category of PD-shape (which I personally do not believe they do). -FASTILY 10:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Er, no, but they do fail the threshold of originality. There is really nothing original about going from a lighter shade to a darker shade of the same color. Even kids use gradients in their painting. And I am afraid your comment about editing programs is a little out of context: Not every editing program can morph a picture of my head into that of a lizard and those that can, do not have a tool called Lisa's-head-to-lizard tool. Only advanced editing tools like Photoshop can, even then, it is an editing technique that needs prowess. Radial gradient is too trivial; it is not advanced and not "complex image manipulation". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I only mentioned editing programs because I believed your claim regarding Paint.NET to be out of context. To reiterate: I am not concerned with how easy it is to produce a gradient using a computer program (or crayons, watercolors, etc.), but rather as to whether a gradient meets the definition of PD-shape (which I believe it does not). -FASTILY 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I understand and agree for most part; except I believe the gradient still does not exceed the threshold of originality and if PD-Shape is unsuitable, we can change it with another PD- tag. Shape of the gradient is nevertheless simple, so it has no problem with PD-Shape. The problem is, PD-Shape does not elucidate on the coloring itself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I only mentioned editing programs because I believed your claim regarding Paint.NET to be out of context. To reiterate: I am not concerned with how easy it is to produce a gradient using a computer program (or crayons, watercolors, etc.), but rather as to whether a gradient meets the definition of PD-shape (which I believe it does not). -FASTILY 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Er, no, but they do fail the threshold of originality. There is really nothing original about going from a lighter shade to a darker shade of the same color. Even kids use gradients in their painting. And I am afraid your comment about editing programs is a little out of context: Not every editing program can morph a picture of my head into that of a lizard and those that can, do not have a tool called Lisa's-head-to-lizard tool. Only advanced editing tools like Photoshop can, even then, it is an editing technique that needs prowess. Radial gradient is too trivial; it is not advanced and not "complex image manipulation". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Complex image manipulations are an easy task with editing programs such as Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. However, my question is not whether gradients are easy to create, but rather whether they legitimately fall under the category of PD-shape (which I personally do not believe they do). -FASTILY 10:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Grandients do not exceed the ToO, they are simple and can be done with any software such as Inkscape or CorelDraw in a few seconds. - Fma12 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that argument is irrelevant. Counter example: Complex 3D models can easily be rendered by MATLAB in seconds, but that doesn't make the resulting image PD/below the threshold of originality. Once again, I am not concerned with whether gradients are easy to produce (I agree, they are, but if you'll notice the nom statement, that's not why I nominated the file), but rather as to whether the meet the definition of PD-shape, which I believe they do not. -FASTILY 00:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
deleted As Fastily says, easy to produce with the right software -- or perhaps not, they are radial rather than rectilinear -- but the colors must be chosen and the designer then chose to put a spotlight effect in the center of the four shapes. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
Logo is not simple; equivalent at English Wikipedia is under non-free fair use. w:File:Windows logo - 2006.svg ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 21:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
