Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monte Generoso LCD.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Monte Generoso LCD.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2010 at 17:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the Lugano Lake, Lugano and Monte San Salvatore as seen from Monte Generoso, Ticino, Switzerland.

* Support Definitely worth my support vote. Related to other votes, I can't understand why too much mountains or little lakes can be a problem when they are part of the reality the picture is trying to depict. Maybe the commenter could enlighten us and tell us what would be an adequate number of mountains or lake sizes for a picture...--Odambrosio (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, don't expect me to drop some DNA for your own pleasure Tomascastelazo. If there is an additional requirement as a new user to express my opinion for a picture it was not specified before. Now this phrase - "Perhaps a checkuser is in order?" -, what kind of a statement is that, did you steal it from a line of Chief Wiggum in the Simpsons? - genius - . I am removing the strike-through from my vote because I have the full right to vote as a wikimedia user.--Odambrosio (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, well, well.... did I ever suggest you did not have the right to vote? Don´t think so... Read my words carefully before you start out on your diatribe. As far as your DNA, no need to have it, you pretty much dated it already ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment 33% of the image is sky, 60% at least is mountains, so that leaves 7% max for a picture of a lake, which could be a wide river from this point of view. On top of that, lighting is flat for a landscape photograph. There are no graphic elements that give this image aesthetic values, that is, color, texture, perspective, balance, etc., etc. and as a landmark or lake picture, photographically speaking, in my opinion, it is not a lake picture, but a picture of mountains and sky with a small portion of a body of water. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Regarding this percentages. First off, you made my day, I can imagine the calculation of those percentages must have been fun, not only do I like the precision in that 33% but I admire your patience. Now that you have gathered all of this information maybe you can write this on a letter to God almighty and complain about the world´s composition, maybe on the next Big Bang he will sort things out for you mate, that way you can have your desired picture and your so called "balance, etc., etc"...--Odambrosio (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odambrosio: You asked for my opinion and I gave it, in line with well known photographic criteria. The image follows nicely the rule of thirds as far as composition goes, and if my math is right, 100 divided by 3 is roughly 33.3... hence the sky and my percentages. Evidently my opinion on photographic evaluation is not good enough for you, so perhaps you could be kind enough to enlighten us as to the photographic merits of this image that you seem so inclined to support and offended by opposing ideas. I do find it very curious for a new user to take such an issue on an oppose vote on a photograph that is not his (or her?). You may want to check this out [[1]], or this [[2]], or this [[3]]. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Tomas. I do understand that the lake is not prominently featured on this image. Perhaps I wrote the caption confusingly and you got that impression. Hence, I am rewriting the caption to be more accurate, and I would like you to check it. In essence, the main subject is NOT the lake itself, but the tremendous view as seen from the Monte Generoso. I do disagree on you calling this image as having no aesthetic value, for the following reason: You can see all the alps from central Switzerland, from the Monte Rosa (on the border with Italy), all the way to Mount Rigi on canton Luzern. This comprises a line-sight view of about 200km. It is very difficult to have such a clear view of all the alpine ridge. With many summits above 4000m, their view is most of the time hampered by clouds, snowstorms or haze. So please check the new caption and let me know if you find it more appropriate.
    • Hi Alvesgaspar. Would you mind telling me which official policy or guideline of Wikimedia explicitly forbids new users to vote? Thanks. --Murdockcrc (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing, for the moment, forbids new users to vote. This particular issue is being discussed in the talk page. However, the practise of Sock puppetry and Meatpuppetry (see here) is not tolerated in polls. Please notice that I'm not saying it is the case, but when a new account is created with the obvious purpose of supporting a nomination, such possibility should be investigated. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually two nominations--Mbz1 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I of course appreciate every user that votes supporting my pictures, and also those that express constructive criticism that helps me improve my photography. If somebody, however, suspects that any vote violates Wikimedia's rules, I invite him or her to please investigate the matter accordingly. --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Support I do think the shadow is problematic, but the view counterbalance this in my opinion. --Swissalps (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC) -- Sockpuppet -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 In view of the unfair treatment I have received by some users in the community, I withdraw my nomination. If you want more information please click here

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Monte_Generoso_LCD.jpg&oldid=47001200"