Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ratner Athletic Center
Ratner Athletic Center[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 05:07:57 (UTC)
- Reason
- Due to the uniqueness of the subject this is a high EV image.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Architectural engineering
Gerald Ratner Athletics Center
Counterweight
Contemporary architecture - FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
- Creator
- Bryan Chang
- Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Conditional Support otherwise Strong Oppose on the condition that this is removed from Counterweight and Contemporary architecture. I would also ask for it to be removed from Architectural engineering if it wasn't for the fact that there are no pictures in that article and it's as good as any - although it's akin to taking a picture of my house to represent it as well as both are examples of Architectural engineering... My reasons for the other two though are: for Counterweight this picture does not show any counterweights... I'm sure there are probably SOME in there somewhere, but this does not show any... And if it does and I'm just not spotting them, then they certainly do not match any already presented in the article so if anything this picture actually confuses things in that article, which has a detrimental effect on WP... For Contemporary architecture there are already sufficient pictures of a lot more impressive examples in what is a relatively miniscule article... And thus this picture looks incredibly out of place... The description is also irrelevant for that article as well, so would at the very least need to be changed to something more like the other pictures in there already... Gazhiley (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am glad to have finally gotten someone's attention on image placement. Regarding, counterweight would a caption reading "In some cases underground counterweights are used in architecture as primary elements of the support structure. César Pelli's Ratner Athletic Center uses counterweights in concert with cables and masts as load-bearing devices." be instructive to the reader of this article? I think this would be more intriguing than say the Leaning Tower of Pisa, which was not originally designed with counterweights and does not use visible cables and masts in concert with them.
- Regarding contemporary architecture, I would think an award winning first of its kind architectural design by César Pelli would count as a primary example of contemporary architecture. I don't know architecture and am not sure why a Pelli innovation is any less relevant to this than Auditorio de Tenerife.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- What would you think of this as a more overt example of High-tech architecture than the majority of images in the article. Given the high visibility of cables and masts, I think it is much more relevant. It also seems to be a more overt example of the Second Chicago School of Architecture than what is there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Better angles exist: [1] [2] [3] even maybe this angle.. but this shot is cluttered and poorly executed. I also agree with Gazhiley, it doesn't belong in those articles. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are objecting to a picture of the gymnasium with pictures of the pool in [4] and [5]. WHy is this (with more foreground clutter better? You are presenting a view from a private residence (dorm) in [6]. If I recall correctly, the dorm was under construction at about the same time as the Center giving OWPP access to its infrastructure for picture taking. Can we say better views from private residences count?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- We can take into consideration the fact that it may be incredibly difficult to get a better angle- however, equally, it could be argued that if a decent shot is close to impossible, then it is not really a worthy subject for a featured picture. J Milburn (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, a great shot is possible from the parking structure across the street where File:20100507 Ratner Center gymnasium roof and masts.JPG and File:20100507 Ratner Center pool roof and masts.JPG come from. From this locations a pano using stitching (which I have never done) is possible I think. Is that a better angle?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- We can take into consideration the fact that it may be incredibly difficult to get a better angle- however, equally, it could be argued that if a decent shot is close to impossible, then it is not really a worthy subject for a featured picture. J Milburn (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are objecting to a picture of the gymnasium with pictures of the pool in [4] and [5]. WHy is this (with more foreground clutter better? You are presenting a view from a private residence (dorm) in [6]. If I recall correctly, the dorm was under construction at about the same time as the Center giving OWPP access to its infrastructure for picture taking. Can we say better views from private residences count?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per raeky, it's a nice picture but not the best view of the building. The spiral wall seen from other angles is a main feature of the strucutre and can't be seen in this shot. Ideally the whole building in its entirety should be represented. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 14:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose It just doesn’t seem to be an FP-quality composition. Greg L (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Can I get some further feedback from User:Gazhiley and User:Raeky on the 4 image placements at issue before withdrawing this and taking it to VPC. I would like to get the matter resolved before doing so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Having just had a very quick look at this, I agree with Gaz's initial comments. --jjron (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- You've demonstrated time and time again that our opinion on your image placements is irrelevant to you, after-all we're not from Chicago so what do we know? After seeing some of the placements of some of your more recent VPC nominations I've officially given up trying to help you. But I will oppose strictly on image placement grounds for now on like Gazhiley. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is not true, I have pretty consistently compromised on placements with removal from articles, relocation in articles, and revising captioning. I think you have worked with me on several such instances like Gondwana, detrivore, 2009–10 Chicago Blackhawks season, at least a half dozen articles related to trains for the control tower image, etc. and should be more familiar than most with the inaccuracy of your own statement. In this case, in spite of the attempts to pick fights without regard to improving the project by multiple parties, I am attempting to have a cogent discussion (instead of picking fights like you FPC guys seem to be doing here). There is a serious issue with regard to counterweight. I will elaborate on the talk page. How do you think it will help the project to not give interactive feedback on issues related to improving the encyclopedia when I have a consistent record of compromise based on feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I compromised with you on detrivore, but on Gondwana I found a far better illustrative image, although not FP quality, to illustrate the subject so that really wasn't a compromise. You flat out attacked me here stating that if I remove anymore of your pictures from articles where it provides questionable values that you'd treat it as vandalism and basically said that my opinion is irrelevant because I don't live there, even though my opinions was validated by several other editors in that nomination. In this nomination where the image is so overtly used it's borderline comical you've constantly ignored or belittled other editors opinions on it's placement, reversed their removals, and that nomination is probably the biggest collection of nonsense off-topic chatter of any FP nomination I've ever witnessed. Lets not forget how you was quick to play the racist card, apparently anyone who disagrees with you is racist right? Or lets look at a couple other recent nominations by you, 1 where you saw fit to put it in Armband, Football helmet and Winged football helmet all right before you nominated the picture, all 3 completely useless placements. Or 2 where you saw this image fit to go into Mask and 2009 Big Ten Conference football season both completely dubious placements, Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry is probably also a bad placement. Do you need more rationale for my comment, or do you want to make more provocative comments on my talk page? — raeky (talk | edits) 23:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Accede to your superior illustration was also a compromise. You still have hard feelings about my harshly worded critique of your removal of File:20090612 Chicago Loop view of the L Tracks, 35 East Wacker, and Trump International Hotel and Tower from Wabash Avenue.jpg. Yes there was lots of consensus that it was not FP and various opinions on what its subject was, but its relevance to Chicago 'L' and related articles should be judged by those who know the subject. I am not a mushroom guy and do not know why Pileus (mycology) should not have real images, but am not going to fight with guys armed with mushroom books about whether it should have photos complementing the illustrations. There was even a Chicago guy (Zagalejo) who voted against the image, but I did not interpret his comment that the "I think a perpendicular view of the el . . . would be more valuable for illustrating the street-level view." was a statement that this should be removed from the article. I think the average Chicagoan would say that image does not detract from the article and the article has plenty of room for it. I do not hold the opinion that your removal of any of my images is vandalism. I make lots of edits on articles outside of my expertise. I have asked for your critical opinion of four such considerations on the talk page to this discussion. I do not hold strong opinions against cogent reasoning for images outside of my expertise. In terms of Wikipedia:Valued_picture_candidates/Kevin_Grady I may have placed his image on one too many related articles, but was not sure. His depiction in armband is much more visible than the previous image (which remains). Winged football helmet needed an image of a player wearing one and Eyeshield would also if it were more than a stub. As far as Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Brandon Graham pressures Terrelle Pryor look very closely at its usage in Mask. It is actually quite high EV in that use. As season MVP in 2009 Big Ten Conference football season, his image has to be in the article and was requested by the GA reviewer. In terms of whether need more rationale for your comment, there is never a rationale for promising not to attempt to consider how to improve the encyclopedia when another editor is interested in feedback and is willing to consider it. I continue to be interested on your feedback and willing to consider it on this talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- What I meant was I'll be taking Gazhiley's approach of opposing conditionally based on usage. — raeky (talk | edits) 06:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- That approach is meaningless unless you are willing to discuss usage in a cogent manner, which is why I welcome you to the talk page. Obviously, if one person thinks an image should be in and another thinks it should not, it is no different than any other encyclopedic content that should be discussed in order for a greater understanding and better decision. I welcome your opposition based on usage as long as you are willing to attempt to understand what is the best thing for each case. Much like I convinced you that detrivore should have a fungus illustration there may be reasons that should be discussed and opinions need to be flexible. Although I understand his insistence on the image removal as it is currently presented, I think a reconsideration of the newly proposed presentation is in order. That is why I welcome you to the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Discussion has been continued on talkpage: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Ratner Athletic Center. Tony, this is really start to waste a lot of people's time. Can you please stop spamming these images about. We don't all have as much time as you appear to have to chase all these images up, comment on or fix all your misuses, and argue about them incessantly. --jjron (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- That approach is meaningless unless you are willing to discuss usage in a cogent manner, which is why I welcome you to the talk page. Obviously, if one person thinks an image should be in and another thinks it should not, it is no different than any other encyclopedic content that should be discussed in order for a greater understanding and better decision. I welcome your opposition based on usage as long as you are willing to attempt to understand what is the best thing for each case. Much like I convinced you that detrivore should have a fungus illustration there may be reasons that should be discussed and opinions need to be flexible. Although I understand his insistence on the image removal as it is currently presented, I think a reconsideration of the newly proposed presentation is in order. That is why I welcome you to the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- What I meant was I'll be taking Gazhiley's approach of opposing conditionally based on usage. — raeky (talk | edits) 06:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Accede to your superior illustration was also a compromise. You still have hard feelings about my harshly worded critique of your removal of File:20090612 Chicago Loop view of the L Tracks, 35 East Wacker, and Trump International Hotel and Tower from Wabash Avenue.jpg. Yes there was lots of consensus that it was not FP and various opinions on what its subject was, but its relevance to Chicago 'L' and related articles should be judged by those who know the subject. I am not a mushroom guy and do not know why Pileus (mycology) should not have real images, but am not going to fight with guys armed with mushroom books about whether it should have photos complementing the illustrations. There was even a Chicago guy (Zagalejo) who voted against the image, but I did not interpret his comment that the "I think a perpendicular view of the el . . . would be more valuable for illustrating the street-level view." was a statement that this should be removed from the article. I think the average Chicagoan would say that image does not detract from the article and the article has plenty of room for it. I do not hold the opinion that your removal of any of my images is vandalism. I make lots of edits on articles outside of my expertise. I have asked for your critical opinion of four such considerations on the talk page to this discussion. I do not hold strong opinions against cogent reasoning for images outside of my expertise. In terms of Wikipedia:Valued_picture_candidates/Kevin_Grady I may have placed his image on one too many related articles, but was not sure. His depiction in armband is much more visible than the previous image (which remains). Winged football helmet needed an image of a player wearing one and Eyeshield would also if it were more than a stub. As far as Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Brandon Graham pressures Terrelle Pryor look very closely at its usage in Mask. It is actually quite high EV in that use. As season MVP in 2009 Big Ten Conference football season, his image has to be in the article and was requested by the GA reviewer. In terms of whether need more rationale for your comment, there is never a rationale for promising not to attempt to consider how to improve the encyclopedia when another editor is interested in feedback and is willing to consider it. I continue to be interested on your feedback and willing to consider it on this talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I compromised with you on detrivore, but on Gondwana I found a far better illustrative image, although not FP quality, to illustrate the subject so that really wasn't a compromise. You flat out attacked me here stating that if I remove anymore of your pictures from articles where it provides questionable values that you'd treat it as vandalism and basically said that my opinion is irrelevant because I don't live there, even though my opinions was validated by several other editors in that nomination. In this nomination where the image is so overtly used it's borderline comical you've constantly ignored or belittled other editors opinions on it's placement, reversed their removals, and that nomination is probably the biggest collection of nonsense off-topic chatter of any FP nomination I've ever witnessed. Lets not forget how you was quick to play the racist card, apparently anyone who disagrees with you is racist right? Or lets look at a couple other recent nominations by you, 1 where you saw fit to put it in Armband, Football helmet and Winged football helmet all right before you nominated the picture, all 3 completely useless placements. Or 2 where you saw this image fit to go into Mask and 2009 Big Ten Conference football season both completely dubious placements, Michigan – Ohio State football rivalry is probably also a bad placement. Do you need more rationale for my comment, or do you want to make more provocative comments on my talk page? — raeky (talk | edits) 23:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is not true, I have pretty consistently compromised on placements with removal from articles, relocation in articles, and revising captioning. I think you have worked with me on several such instances like Gondwana, detrivore, 2009–10 Chicago Blackhawks season, at least a half dozen articles related to trains for the control tower image, etc. and should be more familiar than most with the inaccuracy of your own statement. In this case, in spite of the attempts to pick fights without regard to improving the project by multiple parties, I am attempting to have a cogent discussion (instead of picking fights like you FPC guys seem to be doing here). There is a serious issue with regard to counterweight. I will elaborate on the talk page. How do you think it will help the project to not give interactive feedback on issues related to improving the encyclopedia when I have a consistent record of compromise based on feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- You've demonstrated time and time again that our opinion on your image placements is irrelevant to you, after-all we're not from Chicago so what do we know? After seeing some of the placements of some of your more recent VPC nominations I've officially given up trying to help you. But I will oppose strictly on image placement grounds for now on like Gazhiley. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Having just had a very quick look at this, I agree with Gaz's initial comments. --jjron (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Can I get some further feedback from User:Gazhiley and User:Raeky on the 4 image placements at issue before withdrawing this and taking it to VPC. I would like to get the matter resolved before doing so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Average composition, limited EV in most of its articles. Suggest Speedy Close. --jjron (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.owpp.com/resources/content/1/3/5/9/documents/Ratner_2004JG07_401_ext%20night_p1.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.owpp.com/resources/content/1/3/5/9/documents/Ratner_2004JG07_418_nat%20masts_p.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.esto.com/assignments/2004jg07.418.jpg){kind=link}
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)