Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Mihai Viteazul Square (Cluj-Napoca)

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.

Files in Category:Mihai Viteazul Square (Cluj-Napoca)

[edit]

Per COM:FOP#Romania: non-free sculpture/architecture.

See [1] (Marius Butunoiu, d. 1999). --Eleassar (t/p) 09:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 09:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The plaque depicts a map and a tram. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit absurd to consider the unified utilitarian sign symbol and a very simple line scheme (simple zigzag lines) as creative artworks. In addition, they are quite tiny toward the whole device - hardly can be seen as some violating "reproductions of creative works". Shoudn't we remove all photos of people in mediocre ready-to-wear clothes, all photos depicting automobiles produced in tausends etc.? --ŠJů (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tram had to be drawn by someone, and the line scheme too. It is not an official work and it takes very little to meet the threshold of originality in the United States. The image and the line scheme are of essential importance to the sign designating a bus stop. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See [2]. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See [3]. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See [4]. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eleassar (t/p) 08:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep:

Eleassar, please don't be lazy and actually analyze each picture, don't just request the delition of whole categories.--Strainu (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on File:2011-Monument-IMG_4503.jpg and File:2011.Piata-IMG 4466.jpg, disagree on File:Piata Mihai Viteazul Cluj-Napoca.jpg - the building is the only object of interest, and certainly the image would be radically different without it. I always analyze each picture, but sometimes forget to actually exclude it at the end, so thanks for having spotted them. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image would not be radically different without the block - it would still have the place (as in large, public location) in the foreground. Some of the elements in the picture might be copyrighted, bot not the main subject, the place.--Strainu (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The park would not be radically different, but it is hardly visible. The photograph would be, because the block takes an important and central place in it. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's clarify the terms here: you use central as "in the middle". Commons:De minimis uses the term "key part", which can also be called "central", but with the explanation: "eg it is the reason for taking the photo". This block is clearly not the reason the photo was taken. There is no reference to it in the title, description or usages of the photo.

Also, about the alleged importance of the block and lack of visibility of the park: I've done the math and the block takes about 15% of the surface of the image, while the foreground (park and street) takes around 33% and the sky above the block more than 40% of the image. The rest are other buildings and more sky. So the place (which is everything between the buildings surround it) is more than twice as large as the block.--Strainu (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that the block has been included "entirely accidentally and incidentally", it does not "form an essential part of the composition", and it is "shown with insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity". On the other hand, the park is an essential part and it is shown clearly and in detail. Is this correct? --Eleassar (t/p) 22:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting out of context snippets of the policy does not make for an argument. My argument is that the image fits the following example: "Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless) ". It has not been included accidentally (using another angle would get that block out of the picture, but very likely include another one just like it) and is indeed identifiable, but not essential.--Strainu (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the photo would be radically different without this building, in the same manner as File:Carla del Ponte.jpg without Mladić or File:Quito sculpture - Avenida Brazil at corner with Avenida America.jpg without the graffito. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big building in background in photo 4503. I opened the photo in full size and the building is sharp, with a lot of details. Unfortunately I do not consider this de minimis. This building is simply everywhere and spoils a lot of photos. Taivo (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tram stop sign had three items: logo, scheme of tramways and drawing of tram. I opened the photo in full size. The logo was still blurry and not readable, scheme of tramways also. So only drawing of tram remains. It seems to me, that every tram stop in whole city bears the same drawing. So this is probably part of official road sign. Road signs are not copyrighted. The most important issue for me was the same building in background, what spoiled image 4503, but photo about tram stop is not so big and the house is not so well seen, so I consider this de minimis. Taivo (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, but two kept. Taivo (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Mihai_Viteazul_Square_(Cluj-Napoca)&oldid=111123797"