Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wroclaw-Rathaus.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrocław Town Hall[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 12:29:54 (UTC)

Original – Wrocław Town Hall. The Gothic town hall built from the 13th century is one of the main landmarks of the city.
Reason
good quality and EV
Articles in which this image appears
Wrocław Town Hall, Wrocław, Gothic architecture in modern Poland
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator
Kolossos
  • Support as nominator – Andrei (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Nom. needs a descriptive caption. In the interest of historical transparency, the text should include the fact that, before 1945, the city was the German Breslau, and that this version of the town hall was built in 1860-1863 as the Breslauer Rathaus. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they ever used the FPC captions at POTD. Think they usual just grab from an article. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 18:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
who are "they" Adam? Someone has to do it and FP noms should have a bit more than three words. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: I think there's maybe two or three nominations up at the moment (and one of them is the revised caption to this one) that do much more than simply state what the image is of as briefly as possible. If we all agree this is important and start doing it, fine, but we shouldn't hold a nomination to a standard none of us are holding themselves to. I've listed a couple of my nomination descriptions below. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 23:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
POTD is a full, multi-paragraph blurb; no FPC nomination is lengthy enough for that. I'm pretty sure FPC captions are never looked at or used again once the nomination closes. The file description page matters; captions here really don't. Anyway, Support [Edit: Moving this somewhere it can be read more easily] Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 12:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, some summary info about the subject of the pic – no matter what or who – is necessary here for users to make reasonably informed judgments. That seems obvious to me. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but how does the link to Wrocław Town Hall not do that? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 15:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some summary info should be included here for the convenience of users. Quite odd, and unhelpful, to ID the pic with just the name of the file. However, the historical info above was intended also as a suggestion to the nominator. – Sca (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: I don't know. I look down at my and other people's captions below, and, while I might have needed more words to describe historical images, I just don't feel they're really much more detailed. Using only my own work as... you know, I can grant myself permission to do that, I think I am definitely guilty of exactly the same thing you're criticising this nom for:
Those might have a few more words, but do they really provide much more context? And both are passing. Now, whether we should say more might be worth discussion, but it feels odd to only call out this image when, for example, my A basso porto nom had just about as much context, a major typo in the description (just fixed), and is passing without comment. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 23:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden and Sca: As someone who has been doing quite a bit of POTD blurb writing recently, I look at the nomination page and caption, which often provides information not immediately obvious to the observer. The caption is especially important if the linked article is stubby or the image does not have an informative description. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: Well, I stand corrected! Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 20:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This house is original, while there is also a separate "New" building - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neues_Rathaus_(Breslau). I copied a small caption from the main article as well. --Andrei (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good capture of a notable and interesting building, an appropriate choice of lead image for its article, and the human fork adds some flavor of the goings-on in the foreground plaza. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fork? – Sca (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zoom in on the bottom right. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Ha! Politics? Selling something? – Sca (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fork is amazing, and removing it would be removing a part of the city spirit :) --Andrei (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Just moving my vote here so it's visible. Think it was buried in the conversation above. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 08:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
someone forgot to sign in above
That was me. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 08:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Wroclaw-Rathaus.jpg --Armbrust The Homunculus 14:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Wroclaw-Rathaus.jpg&oldid=1138150230"