Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Himalayan design of a bridge

Himalayan design of a bridge

 * Reason:Good quality image of uniquely designed and very unusual bridge. The image has great EV.
 * Articles this image appears in:Lac de Monteynard Avignonet,Suspension bridge
 * Creator:user:Herbythyme


 * Support as nominator --mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Nice picture, but would be support if I could see the anchors on the land - the picture has no way of showing how the bridge is supported - as far as we know there could be a huge suspension bridge style fixture behind the camera... Would be better taken from further back showing entry onto bridge... also picture seems to be slightly off centre which is distracting, but this is only a small issue... Gazhiley (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vote, Gazhiley. I partly agree with you, but IMO you still are able to apretiate the design of the bridge because you could see that there is not a single foundation used to support the bridge.--mbz1 (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * how? You cannot see the whole bridge? For all we know this could be taken from the mid point of the bridge and directly under the cameraman/woman could be a huge pillar support... Unless you can see the whole bridge side to side there is no definate way of proving that there are no foundations on this bridge... Gazhiley (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question,Gazhiley. Himalayan design of the bridges has two major characteristics: The bridges are cable-supported and do not have the foundation. Now let's say that you are right and the image was taken from the mid point of the bridge.You still could clearly see the cables  (most on the left-hand side of the image), and you still cannot see a foundation. I hope you would agree with me that, if a suspencion bridge has  foundations there should be at least two of them in the beginning and in the end. If we see no foundation neither in the middle nor in the end, it is reasonable to assume that the bridge has no foundations at all. I believe that the nominated image might be the only image we have of such design. Thank you.--mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not disagree that this bridge in real life is not as it is described, but for it to be a featured picture, it should show how the bridge works... The only way of doing this is taking the picture further away, showing the conections to the land, and proving the lack of foundations...  In this picture we can only take your word for it that there are no foundations, and that this is a Himalayan design...  I don't doubt that you speak the truth, and that there are no foundations under the bridge, but this does not show those facts...  This just shows a bridge with wires running along it...  Gazhiley (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose The main concern, Gazhiley, should not be whether or not the photograph authentically shows a himalayan design bridge. The concern should be that it does not even show the Himalayan design. We see an off-center photograph of the bridge's span, and can vaguely see cables in the distance. Also, the photograph does not add value to the articles in which it appears in, as there is only a small, paragraph-long sub-section on Himalayan design. A better angle and better view of the actual Himalayan design would be much better. -- AJ24 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree that the image does not add value to the articles it is in. Article Lac de Monteynard Avignonet is more about the place than about specific design of the bridge, and it is nice to see how the bridge looks. IMO the image is also good for article Suspension bridge. I had a very hard time figuring out what exactly "Himalayan design" means, and IMO the information and the image I added to the article Suspension bridge will make it easier for others to understand. I've already said that the image is not perfect to show the bridge design, but IMO it still gives the impression of what the bridge and design look like. Thank you.--mbz1 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Ignoring the misleading title for a minute, this isn't in the article for this type of bridge anyway... Noodle snacks (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, Noodle snacks. It is in the article Suspension bridge. I added it to the article 2 days ago before nominating the image. I agree that the image is not perfect to show this particular design, but I believe it is the only image of this kind of bridge that we have now.--mbz1 (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the value here seems to be in illustrating "Himalayan design", but there's very little information on what that is. It seems to mean "no pilons, cables are attached directly to the ground" - this discussion about "foundations" is a bit confusing. IMHO, this is a good picture of this particular bridge, and an ok picture of that *type* of bridge. Stevage 02:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This photo is also part of a DYK nom. The "no foundations" claim is misleading;  the bridge has no piers and no towers, but it does have at least one foundation.  That is evident because there is a low upright at the far end.  You can see it if you zoom in the photo.  The bridge is not purely supported by anchors.  "Himalayan design" may be a neologism, a literal translation of a description in a French popular article about the bridge;  I am searching for the English term for this specific type of bridge.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, Una Smith. The bridge has no single foundation.--mbz1 (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 08:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)