Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wüzburg Residence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Würzburg Residence

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 21:53:28 (UTC)

Original - The front façade of the Würzburg Residence, a palace of the former Prince-Bishops of Würzburg, Germany. The Residence was designed by several of the leading Baroque architects of the 18th century: Johann Balthasar Neumann, Johann Lukas von Hildebrandt and Maximilian von Welsch of the South German Baroque style, as well as Robert de Cotte and Germain Boffrand, of the French Style.
Reason
This is a great panorama of the Würzburg Residence and the beginnings of its Court Gardens, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It really brings out the harmony and elegance of the Baroque architectural style.
Articles in which this image appears
Würzburg Residence, Johann Balthasar Neumann, Maximilian von Welsch
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Rainer Lippert
Invalid Oppose discussion
    • Leaning Oppose This is a single use image of a building whose architects have images in need of quality illustration. I find this to be quite a lazy nomination. One of the architcts has no images in his article. The possible uses of this image are clear. This is an inexcusable single-use nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why the sudden change of heart? I've noticed you have stated this on a few noms now, and I have responded on the navy poster... I just find the words "lazy" and "inexcusable" to be quite harsh words - if this image is only used in one article, then that makes the nom more "accurate" than "lazy", and I for one would rather see this in one article than crowbared into as many articles as possible, ala this just to get it to pass ev... IMO adding this particular nom to more pages would decrease it's EV as this is the only page this has high EV for... And thus it is perfectly justified being a single use nom... Please do not blanket all single use noms as some are better off being single use... And more importantly the criteria for FP clearly states that "The image is used in one or more article" so it is perfectly fine and certainly not lazy... Gazhiley (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Lazy"? "Inexcusable"? That's hurts, man ; ) You know, the point of the nominator is not to cram the image into as many semi-related articles as he can. EV (Encyclopedic Value) is not at all based on the number of articles an image is in. Let's take the example of this image: it's of the Würzburg Residence. It's in the Würzburg Residence article. That's perfectly sufficient EV. NauticaShades 15:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, new discussion here. NauticaShades 16:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you are worried about achieving gold stars, you can fight with me about things, but if you are interested in improving WP, there is little doubt that putting the image in the artchitects' articles would benefit WP, regardless of what type of FP recognition will appear on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alright, that's nice, put it on the article. That has nothing to do with this nomination, as has been said. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again. My point is that I am asking the person who is closest to this image (it nominator) if he cares about WP enough to consider helping out other articles that the image might belong in. I am not that close to the image and have just scanned the architects, but someone close to the article could evaluate the propriety of inclusion in each of the architects pretty easily. I am asking if the nominator is interested in improving WP in that way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Alright, if you're not interested in doing it yourself, consider contacting the nominator on their talk page. This is not the place for ridiculous amounts of discussion concerning this issue. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the task of appropriately illustrating an article is mainly by the editors of that article not a responsibility for FPC. Particularly by panos one should consider that is not easy to fit well in the layout of an article as it interrupts the continuity of the text IMO, hence many panos are only used in a small number of articles. --Elekhh (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oooooo this is like Where's Wally! I can see the burglars and the Eiffel Tower, but where's the UFO?!Gazhiley (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above the left side of the building- I assume they're distant birds. I'll be honest, that was the least interesting of three :) J Milburn (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the sun is comming, let's say, fron the front, and since the building is wide you will manage to see the shadow of the columns on the left to their right and those of the right to their left. Just in the same way, in perspective, you see parallel lines converging. Abisharan (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not possible. You are describing parallax across a building. The sun is 93 million miles away; the angle subtended across the width of a building is too small to measure (though it could be calculated). There can not possibly be parallax effects with the sun unless the building were so wide it spanned across multiple time zones. Moreover, the parallax effect you are describing that could be produced with a single, nearby light source would produce shadows heading the opposite direction from what we see here. If a single, nearby light source (not the sun as you described) was located in the courtyard in front of the camera, the shadows would be heading towards the right on the right-hand side of the picture and the opposite would be true on the left-hand side; that’s the opposite of what we see here. Two light sources would be required to produce these shadows.

    Let’s imagine we’re looking north. On the right-hand side of this picture, the sun is casting shadows as if it is rising in the east, right? Now look at the left-hand side of the picture; the shadows appear like the sun is setting in the west. This is absolutely impossible. I can think of only two ways to explain the shadows in this picture: 1) different photographs were taken at different times of the day, or 2) one photograph was taken but there was mirroring and a pile of retouching done.

    After studying this picture very closely, it appears it was #1: photographs taken at entirely different times of the day and stitched together. It clearly appears that the left side building was photographed at a different time of the day. Check it out closely. Start with the right-hand side of the building and work your way to the left. Note how the shadows all look like the morning sun if we’re looking north. Then, as one gets to the center of the building, the shadows suddenly reverse as one works across the four columns. This image is impossible hocus pocus and seems to have gone well over the line with regard to Featured Picture Criteria #8: inappropriate digital manipulation. Greg L (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not what I am saying. The reason is much more simple than that. Since the sun is so far away the lines passing through the columns and their respective shadows are almost parallel. As are most of the lines in this picture. Nevertheless you see them converging. That is what I am saying could be happening, which is the most common of the illusions, perspective. No parallax or conspiracy needed to explain it. Of course, I have no idea how really the picture was produced. But if so simple explanation is at hand and in WP we assume good faith... Do the experiment. Find a street going East-West, step in the middle of it (carefully) and look at the shadow of the traffic lights in both sidewalks. Abisharan (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the deeper shadows in the circle in the center just search the building in google maps. There are taller trees on that side and again, If the image was taken that early with the sun coming right from behind the photographer you will get them there. Abisharan (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, Abisharan is quite right. If the photographer was centred onto the building it appears the sun was just slightly over their right shoulder. For a similar effect refer to my Australian Parliament House image where a morning sun was coming from behind and a bit to the left. You can see a bit of the effect in the portico where the shadows on the left and right differ, while not actually completely 'changing direction', but the further spread the things are the more you get the effect - look at the cutouts in the roofline and the short posts in the foreground where the shadows do 'change direction'. I can assure you there was no trickery in the production of my image, it was all taken within a matter of a couple of minutes. --jjron (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I was full of a colossal boat-load of crap. All we are seeing here is viewer-perspective parallax where the sun is almost exactly behind the photographer. I’m sorry for inducing everyone to have to spend time explaining the drop-dead obvious to me. Greg L (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Würzburger Residenz, Gartenfront.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Wüzburg_Residence&oldid=1089815850"