Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nickelodeon logo 2023 by thortheskunk911 dfqnnzx-fullview.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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:Nickelodeon logo 2023 by thortheskunk911 dfqnnzx-fullview.png

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by MexTDT as Copyvio (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F1. COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Info
TilmannR (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding two more:
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more:
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more:
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For convenience, here's a list of all the 2023 versions of the logo:
TilmannR (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the new Nickelodeon splat logo is not intended to live on a white background. The white text is rendered illegible with no background color behind it. Having the logo displayed this way is inconsistent with Nickelodeon's updated brand guidelines. Kutluj (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brand guidelines are not relevant to this discussion. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And another one: Nickelodeon_2023_logo_(outline).svg Wikiwerner (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree Copyvio in addition it appears most of the logo's are coming directly from Fandom pages, witch can't be used as a source. The sites used in the images need to come from Nickelodeon itself not a fandom wiki. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fandom Wiki that logo used is mostly flat version. However, flat version of the logo is also acceptable as long as it had equivalent to the original 3D version. Nick itself occassionally use flat version of this logo. 114.125.236.122 01:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source is not relevant as long as the logos are legitimate and in the public domain. It needs to be specified, but you can take a public domain image from anywhere. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. Keep any logos with a non-textured "splat" and delete the rest. I think that these fall below the threshold of originality in the United States. If you compare to the examples at COM:TOO US you will see that PD status is not restricted solely to fixed geometric shapes. The fact that these are single color, without shading, and have a relatively simple shape indicates that they are simple enough. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep File:NICK-2023.svg and File:NICK2023.png;  Delete File:Nickelodeon logo 2023 by thortheskunk911 dfqnnzx-fullview.png and File:Nickelodeon Splat Logo.jpg. The first, second, and third files I listed are all below the threshold of originality in United States copyright law. They each consist of a single color, a single font, and a simple splat shape. Despite this, the third file should be deleted, as it is essentially a less-accurate version of the second and first files. The fourth file, on the other hand, is much more complex: I believe it does cross the threshold of originality, given the slimy shine of parts of the splat and the gradient of the purple background. It could only be rationalized under fair use, which is prohibited on Wikimedia Commons. — Mr. Starfleet Command (Talk • Contributions • Social Activity) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep for flat versions of the 2023 logo only (both PNG and SVG, but SVG preferred). The fourth file in question (File:Nickelodeon Splat Logo.jpg) is the most likely candidate for deletion giving that the shape texture and much more shiny gradient background, that's above the threshold of originality that must be count. The third file (File:Nickelodeon logo 2023 by thortheskunk911 dfqnnzx-fullview.png) is essentially the least likely candidate to be deleted. The other two files are below TOO and should be tagged TOO-US when necessary to affirm this that cannot be deleted. 202.67.43.4 01:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep For all flat versions of the 2023 splat logo only. Per other arguments, these flat versions are all below threshold of originality in US copyright law (It may be above TOO in other countries (particularly UK/Australia) however, but it's not relevant), giving that they have single color, single font, and single splat. We should only  Delete a image that have more complex than just splat shape in nature (File:Nickelodeon Splat Logo.jpg), it have the shiny parts of the splat and the gradient in the purple background. We want to go more strict about fair use usage of Wikipedia image. 180.254.163.46 05:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete it please — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.80.79 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Nickelodeon logo 2023 by thortheskunk911 dfqnnzx-fullview.png, NICK2023.png, Nickelodeon Splat Logo.jpg, and NICK-2023.svg, so, basically, all of them (Nickelodeon Logo (2023–present).png has already been deleted). I really do not think the shapes are below the TOO; there's too much randomness in how the main splat shape is constructed, at least. The text is fine, the shading is not really an issue, and the lone circle is itself OK. The main splat shape, though? The off-center blob at the bottom, the blob at the top that has two "heads", so to speak, and the variance of curves and angles make this too complex to be kept here. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The wordmark alone represents the entity better and doesn't run into any COPYVIO concerns and is visible on everything but its exact orange shade. This is pretty much light-mode hostile and doesn't add anything outside an extra element that obscures and shrinks the wordmark and is too complex overall to render easily like a simple wordmark does. 'Change for the sake of change' logo fans should just follow the KISS principle and keep things simple. Nate • (chatter) 03:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all. If we use the guideline of TOO in the United Kingdom or its equivalent countries, all of these images should be deleted without question giving that it had unique font and splast shape. However, Nickelodeon was based in the U.S., we need to recommend deletion of more complex nature of the logo itself, that's splast shape and textured (In other words, non-textured ones should not deleted). I don't think any shapes of splast matters, as long as it didn't textured. 36.77.115.87 13:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete all. Agree to many IP comments. No matter whether it is textured splash or not, this logo should be deleted NOW. 125.167.58.120 02:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep flat version only. I would guess that any shapes of splat are not eligible for the copyright, giving the fact that the new 2023 logo was not yet registered copyright by the copyright authority. Only 3d shapes that could removed due to these above the threshold of originality. 118.96.61.125 03:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be worth noting that, as far as I can tell, Nickelodeon hasn't registered the logo with the United States Copyright Office, which seems to indicate that it could be below the threshold of originality in the US. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contributions) 02:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I don't have a Commons account, I am the user Howard Harold 129 I edit the Spanish Wikipedia, but the logo must remain, it must not be deleted, if the article is deleted it will be without a logo, unless it puts the previous logo, but the page would be outdated in the logo if I do that, just as they are in the articles of the Corazón and Cinema channels with their outdated logos in the Spanish Wikipedia, at least other Wikipedias like the English Wikipedia, have a space for local images, something that the Spanish Wikipedia does not have, that is why I say that the logo must remain, regards--190.236.202.77 09:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not matter whether an article becomes without a logo. If it is a copyright violation, then we are obliged to delete it. Wikiwerner (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep all flat 2D logos with more reasonable reason. I don't see any incarnations of Nickelodeon's splat logo registered by US Copyright office, which make all of them below TOO. However, when we talking more specific, i see the 3D textured version of the logo (File:Nickelodeon Splat Logo.jpg) above TOO, so that file is only the likely deletion candidate if is deleted. Elsewhere, all other files (2D version of the logo) should be kept. Yayan550 (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the lack of registration indicative of being below the TOO, or are other factors at play (such as the paperwork to register taking a long time or no registration being sought to begin with)? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per one of the nominations. Maanshen (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: all the 2D versions of the logo for being below the very generous COM:TOO US, but deleted the 3D one. —holly {chat} 18:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nickelodeon_logo_2023_by_thortheskunk911_dfqnnzx-fullview.png&oldid=801498174"