Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ningbo Rail Transit1.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.
Non-standard calligraphy with creativity involved (shape of the original character changed to make the text similar to a section of railway), therefore under copyright protection according to COM:TOO#China. Previous deletion case can be seen here. Siyuwj (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep There is no visible characters in the logo, just simple geometry shape (Lines forming as an ordinary track and a line on a track). This met the threshold of origin according to COM:TOO#China. The previous deletion discussion should not be considered here due to the fact that the previous image is deleted based on original uploader's request. VulpesVulpes825 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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) 02:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, in the link you provided, all of the image is no longer accessible. 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 that the 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 not be deleted. VulpesVulpes825 (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- User:Siyuwj Please do not shout at me. It is extremely rude to do so. This case is 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. There is no trace of 甬 in this logo. This means that it no longer follow the LY case and 道 case since the logo nominated for delete does not involve any obvious typography or calligraphy. As I mentioned above, the logo should be kept due to containing simple geometry shape and no obvious typography nor calligraphy. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) (Please keep the whole conversation at where it starts) 00:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. By not having obvious depiction of the top part of the Chinese characters, it no longer follow the LY case and 道 case since the logo nominated for delete does not involve any obvious typography or calligraphy. 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. As summary, neither of us are the Chinese intellectual judge, so I express my opinion based on what I see and compare that to the COM:TOO#China, which the logo follow COM:TOO#China since the logo do not have obvious typography or calligraphy. Unless we have a Chinese court judge's decision, this discussion may end up as inconclusive since both of us have huge opinion as whether the degree of distortion of Chinese character in the logo still have obvious depiction of 甬 as a whole or not. VulpesVulpes825 (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- User:Siyuwj Please do not shout at me. It is extremely rude to do so. This case is 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. There is no trace of 甬 in this logo. This means that it no longer follow the LY case and 道 case since the logo nominated for delete does not involve any obvious typography or calligraphy. As I mentioned above, the logo should be kept due to containing simple geometry shape and no obvious typography nor calligraphy. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) (Please keep the whole conversation at where it starts) 00:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- User KirikLU consulted Ningbo Rail Transit Group (the owner of the logo) and they replied that the logo is examined and registered by Copyright Protection Center of China (中国版权保护中心), therefore it is copyrighted and above the threshold of originality. More information can be consulted at http://zxts.zjzwfw.gov.cn/wsdt/ (may only accept consults in Chinese). You may also query these information in [3]. - Siyuwj (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, in the link you provided, all of the image is no longer accessible. 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 that the 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 not be deleted. VulpesVulpes825 (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per Siyuwj. Copyright registered with local authority. --Wcam (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 01:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
