Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wüzburg Residence

Würzburg Residence
Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 21:53:28 (UTC)
 * 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:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Rainer Lippert


 * Support as nominator --Nautica Shad es  21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It's a nice panorama with good composition, but the image quality is slightly lacking. It's particularly noticable in the detail on either side of the building, but thankfully not too bad on the subject. &#208;iliff   &#171;&#187; (Talk)  22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that. Luckily, it doesn't seem to affect the detail on the building itself : ) Nautica Shad es  23:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I find the composition impressive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * jjron has just phrased this better than me in the cloud cover article... Gazhiley (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Once again, Tony, I implore you to reconsider. Alternatively, I implore the closer to ignore Tony's vote. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How can you implore me whether to reconsider whether an architect with no images in his article should have an image of this quality in it. It is delinquent not to incorporate an image like this in some of the architect's articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And that has absolutely nothing to do with opposing this image. You're perfectly able to make that point while still supporting this image for its main usage. The usage in the architect article would never hit the main page anyway- this will always be an image of the building first, an example of the architects' work second. J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "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. Nautica Shad es  15:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, new discussion here. Nautica Shad es  16:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Images added to Johann Balthasar Neumann per discussion. Nautica Shad es  10:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Has a good resolution. - ☩ Damërung ☩ . -- 00:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Diliff.  Jujutacular  T · C 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Some fun little things going on (burgular? UFOs? Eiffel Tower?) but a wonderfully uncluttered photograph, well taken, that illustrates the building extremely well. I have absolutely no problem supporting this. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Support per J MilburnGazhiley (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support A nice high resolution photograph of an architectural wonder. By the way, what's with the rock in the front? Haljackey (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Dilif. The quality of many similar pano FPs is a bit higher, but is still a nice image, an I am happy it features a human to demonstrate the scale of the building. --Elekhh (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: Good illustration of the subject. Central to the article. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ??Comment?? Just how in the world does one have shadows on the right-hand end of the building that are caused by the sun coming from the right, while over on the other end of the building, the shadows are coming from the other direction? There can only be one sun. There appears to be too much photoshopping going on here, including in clouds above the center of the building. Greg L (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * This is in fact quite possible - see below. --jjron (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Interesting picture. Greg L (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * This building faces East and the file's meta-data says it was generated at 7:56 (I guess it is AM) which agrees with the sun coming right from the front. Abisharan (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Comment I am totally confused on the architect. The caption suggests four architects, but the image is included in the article of a fifth architect. What gives?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The palace took something like 80 years to complete. Many architects, including the four others in the caption, were employed as consultants. Johann Balthasar Neumann was the main architect, I believe, hence the image in his article. I've fixed the caption to reflect this. Nautica Shad es  14:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not sure why you did not include it in a couple other architects, but I will leave that to you. I have struck my oppose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the other four were just consultants, and three of their articles had images already, so I thought it wasn't necessary. I've since added the image to Maximilian von Welsch, though, since his article lacked any images. Nautica Shad es  10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Diliff. --jjron (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Very interesting building and well executed photograph. — raeky ( talk 17:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)