Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monumentopt.jpeg

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:Monumentopt.jpeg

This is the old logo of the now defunct IPPAR, as can be seen here in the German Wikipedia, with a warning to not transfer to Commons, and in a number of places across the web. It represents a stylized window in Portuguese Gothic style. Nominating the file to deletion to clarify if it is below the Threshold of originality. Personally, I doubt it would be, as it's a logo with a certain degree of complexity, not simple geometric shapes. Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This symbol is just a vectorial drawing of one of the many gothic style tracery windows at Batalha Monastery. Here's an example, among dozens, including the circular ornaments. In fact, this design is so overwhelmingly common it could be pretty much any gothic window in Europe. Since it's such a common design in architecture and anyone can make a similar vectorial drawing that would look exactly the same as this logo, I believe its way below the threshold of originality. Polyethylen (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is exactly the same case as in France, where the logo for historical monuments is just a vectorial, stylized drawing of the gothic labirynth at Reims Cathedral. Therefore, every file in this category is below the threshold. Polyethylen (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both situations are not comparable, and the French situation has little to do with the Threshold of Originality. The Reims Cathedral labyrinth is not that modern projection in the floor you seem to believe it was, but rather a true medieval labyrinth under the Reims Cathedral, destroyed in 1779. There is a surviving drawing from the 16th century showing a floor plan of that labyrinth, which was copied to produce both the French logo and the projection in the floor you saw in that photograph. The Portuguese logo, on the other hand, is not a copy of anything, but an original drawing inspired in a Manueline, or Portuguese Gothic window. The generic subject of the inspiration is certainly in the public domain, but the drawing is not.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I don't know what you mean by "circular ornaments" (the trilobate fills of the rose windows?), but the example you presented as inspiration is not even from the type and style that inspired this drawing, as it is a portal in regular flamboyant Gothic, built in the late 14th century, more than one century before the Manueline style was around. Not only it's not Manueline, and displays different shapes than the ones that inspired the drawing, it's not even a window. This window is much more to the point, though it would probably be impossible to find an exact match, as the drawing is an original, generic stylization, and not a copy of a precise theme. Also, pretty much all or the great majority of the Manueline windows are "one-of-a-kind", precisely because of the immense originality and creativity intrinsic to the Manueline style, they are not models repeated and copied over and over.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we won't have time to find the exact window this logo is a replica of, with the exact same proportions, since we would have to browse thousands of fotos. But that's irrelevant. You're totally missing the point here: this is just a very simple and faithful silhouette drawing from an extremelly common architectural detail, with no original elements. In no way this is above the threshold of originality, since anyone can create an identical file. Polyethylen (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasoning explained above. This is an original drawing too complex to be under the TOO. "anyone can create an identical file" and "[a] silhouette drawing from an extremelly common architectural detail" do not contribute with anything to this discussion, as the image itself is of some complexity, and not mere geometrical shapes. It wouldn't matter in the least if the image was inspired by some common architectonic detail (which it isn't). It could have been inspired by the Sun. It's the result that counts. -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 07:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a faithful silhouette reproduction of a gothic window with absolutely no original elements. Claiming that "it isn't [inspired by it]" is just lack of honesty, specially after this image was brought into the discussion. There's no original or creative interpretation of the subject to claim such copyrights. Most of the files on the "logos" category have way more creative work than this one. Polyethylen (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown this drawing to be a faithful reproduction of anything at all, you just have this vague idea that it may be. It is not enough. The fact that it was inspired by some piece of architecture does not detracts in the least from its originality. Please read COM:TOO, in particular the first paragraph: ""originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author" (insofar as it somehow reflects the author's personality), rather than "never having occurred or existed before" ". -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a "vague idea", as you now claim. It is a faithful silhouette drawing of one of the many late gothic portuguese windows, without any creative interpretation. The fact there are hundreds of examples this could have been copied from does not make the statement "vague". It just points out there are plenty of possible sources. Some random examples:

Also, every file in this category of heritage logos around the world is way more creative and original than this one. Can't figure why the obsession with the portuguese logo. Polyethylen (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an "obsession", I just passed by it, and found it to be above TOO, as explained above. BTW, thanks for pointing that category, it was indeed filled with copyvios and suspicious/doubtful cases which have now been dealt with accordingly.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Difficult question. For example, I am not able to redraw the image. If somebody finds an old window with exactly the same shape, then maybe it can be kept, but such window is not shown yet. Taivo (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Below the ToO as a representation of a generic window style. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monumentopt.jpeg

File:Monumentopt.jpeg

Navigation menu

Search