Portal:Vancouver/Showcase Picture/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

VOTE for the Showcase Picture of the Vancouver Portal


If nominating a new picture, please add {{VP Showcase|media=picture}} to the said picture's talk page. This will also include the page into Category:VP Showcase candidates.


This is where photos are nominated for highlight on the Vancouver Portal. In the "nominations" section, place a picture you think qualifies as a showcase picture. Once a picture is selected, the {{VP Showcase}} template will be replaced with {{VP Showcase2}}.

[edit] Criteria

Any picture you feel stands out from the rest qualifies as a Showcase Picture, though it must be in context with Vancouver and it has to be released under a free licence or is part of the public domain. (See WP:FUC) Some recommendations are

  • The photo is taken from an interesting perspective;
  • The target is interesting;
  • It is a featured picture

[edit] Example

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|a reasonable size here]]
(Reason) - (Signed)

  • Support - (reason) - (signed)
  • Oppose - (reason) - (signed)

etc.

[edit] Nominations for May 2007

Vancouver's waterfront

  • Port of Vancouver taken from Harbour Centre. My own photo. I think it illustrates the subject nicely, with all the cranes lined up at the various piers and the trains. Also shows Gastown, Burnaby Mountain, the Heliport, Crab Park, all set against a sky-blue sky. Probably some narcotics in those containers, hmm? bobanny 19:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Support, but changing to June nom. due to current date. Simply, our port in a natural setting. --Canadianshoper 05:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for April 2007

[edit] Science World at TELUS World of Science

  • I would like to renominate a Science World at TELUS World of Science picture since the very first ever Showcase picture, which was of Science World, was deleted due to further investigation of a copyright violation. The picture is large and high quality. While it does not compare to the first one, I feel that for all the same reasons the first one was nominated its a landmark, perhaps one of the most defining one, and we should have it in our archives. Mkdwtalk 02:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Shore Mountains

With my luck it will be shot down. If this fails, I promise to stop posting bad pics here and develop talent. Anyway, here's a panorama of the north shore mountains. — Selmo (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • OpposeI'm sorry but this is going down by me. It also has the blurr and is too dull to really highlight the north shore mountains. The buildings near the shore are not clear, but it would be better if they weren't there anyway. Canadianshoper 01:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I may be able to photoshop some life into it. — Selmo (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be better to take it all over again. I doubt photoshop will do enough. Canadianshoper 22:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Selmo I feel that your photography is coming along and I do think its a good picture, but I feel it lacks that 'wow' factor that is needed to satisfy 'the best of Vancouver'. Mkdwtalk 05:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver Art Gallery

[edit] Second nom

In response to the below, I'm posting this. — Selmo (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose It looks burry. If you look at the high-def version, I can see streaks that look like rain. How about of third nomination. Canadianshoper 07:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, The picture lacks that 'wow' factor sometimes talked about in FPC's. Do you have a photo of the art gallery that has more colour? Perhaps on a sunny day? On a side note, you said "complains: WP:CREEP". From what I understand WP:CREEP is a frowned upon practice that suggests people here have jumped on some sort of band wagon if you're bringing it up. I don't think anyone here hasn't been truthful to their own opinion, which we are asking for here. Mkdwtalk 05:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The instruction creep thing was related to the director removal. You wrote in an edit summary that there were too many complaints about article directors, so I reflected it here, citing that as one of the guidelines that probably supported the complaint. (again, I have no idea what it was) — Selmo (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First nom

Original
Original
Edited version
Edited version


  • I think this should be much better than the one I nominated before. I think that the art gallery is a great idea to be showcased. I'm deleting my old nomination to replace this one. Canadianshoper 02:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. More interesting shot of the Art Gallery, but the building is still pretty obscured. In all fairness though, it's impossible to get a shot of this thing that's not obscured by trees. Another advantage of this version is that it shows not just the Art Gallery, but also one of the most significant public spaces downtown. Bobanny 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I photoshopped it to reduce the shadows and cropped it to make it less grass and sky and more Art Gallery. I've got 2 monitors that display photos quite differently, and on one of them it looks a little flat with the edit, but on the other one, it looks fine. If others feel that's a problem, I can give it another shot. Bobanny 05:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the crop. Canadianshoper 17:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, the edited version is my favourite and the grass is a nice touch though I feel it dominates the composition of the piece. I don't think cropping the grass out will help though for the angle depends on it a great deal. I also feel that the trees, in this shot in particular, block the art gallery and I'm sure there is another angle that could be explored where the trees frame the gallery with out blocking it. Perhaps a higher angle, or having the sun front light the building instead of a mid-day or afternoon shot. Mkdwtalk 09:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for March 2007

[edit] Burrard Street Bridge


  • I've recently been corresponding with Ivan Lam through email. He's a local photographer and had some amazing photos to offer. I've removed my previous picture in place for this one. This one shows the elegence of the Burrard Bridge in the way I was hoping for. Mkdwtalk 08:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, this is the perfect photo of Burrard Bridge. The angle and light work great! Canadianshoper 02:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Bobanny 02:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Supoort Langara College 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for February 2007

[edit] Fairmont Hotel Vancouver


  • I found this picture at commons, and I think this is a fantastic photo. The sun hitting the roof makes it look very nice. Found at Wikimedia Commons. -- Selmo (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for January 2007

[edit] Deadman's Island

  • Historically significant location: Massacre took place here (pre-contact); first of the 3 times riot act was read in Vancouver here; former graveyard; quarantine site; currently contested ownership (Musqueum and City of Vancouver). Photo shows squatter shacks and trees shortly before both were removed (c. 190?); illustrates a different world; good contrast with the Science World photo (establishes broad range for photos). And it's just a spooky old photo I like.- Nomination and Support by Bobanny 18:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. -- Selmo (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Mkdwtalk 02:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for December 2006

[edit] Science World

Image:Scienceworld.jpg
I think its a beautiful image. The colours are rich and blend nicely. There is no pixelation and the size is perfect the Portal. There are no overexposed areas and the image is framed very well. Furthermore I feel that Science World is a legacy of Expo 86 and something we should display proudly. Mkdwtalk 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - I was really impressed with this photo when I first saw it. -- Selmo (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - This is just beautiful and important in our city. I love the reflection. Canadianshoper 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Just a lovely piece of work. Luke! 14:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)