Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Isfahan Lotfollah mosque ceiling symmetric.jpg

Dome of Lotfollah mosque, Isfahan

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2012 at 06:12:33 (UTC)

Original – Dome of the Lotfollah mosque, Isfahan (interior side)

Reason

Beautiful, high quality, and impressive symmetry

Articles in which this image appears

Lotfollah mosque, Symmetry

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors

Creator

Phillip Maiwald (Nikopol)

• Support as nominator --Z 06:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support good quality, technical framing, 3D conception.Alborzagros (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, wonderful Jkadavoor (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support support support support. Great image, framing. Underrepresented area (Islam) Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support--MR.Brain 12:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Have people actually looked at the articles in which this is used? The EV in symmetry is next to none, as the section is over-illustrated and this kind of architecture (nevermind this particular example) is not mentioned at all. In the mosque article, it's just been tagged on to the end of a (large) gallery. A great candidate for Commons FP, a poor one for enwp. J Milburn (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Has this been advertised somewhere? J Milburn (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with J Milburn: limited EV. For the mosque article, the photo showing half the ceiling and some wall is actually more useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs)
• Comment Colin, Milburn, I think you're entirely missing the point and purpose of the artist. To explain in approachable language, the designer causes the viewer to experience an altered state of mind. Keep in mind, that the artist has decided that the proper viewing position is to stand straight with your head leaning back so your face points towards the heavens above, and you lose the sense of connection (visual and symbolic) to the ground, as well as the whole bloodflow thing. Beginning by overloading the viewers vision with fine detail and pattern which increases towards the center of the image, matching the rod and cone density of the human eye, then using the central focusing point which the artists has given the viewer to "hold onto for dear life" as their brain 'compensates' by negating the pattern which 'disappears' after a few moments for some people, but takes longer for others (same way some people can't see the 3D images on paper by refocusing their eyes, this is easy for some, takes longer for others). The viewer is holding onto the central point as all the rest of the image disappears and swirls. This has obvious connections to the place the viewer has in the world. There are many messages this artist has for the viewer, and certainly the religious messages are clear. Am I the only person seeing these clear meanings ? This is not Christmas wrapping paper. This is a mosque ceiling. Unfortunately, although we can well stare at the center point on our monitor, no matter how good or how wide and detailed the monitor is, A) none of us are holding the monitor overhead B) none of us are pilgrims. So I guess it's 'what fraction' of the message of this artist can we grasp. That is the question. Having part of the floor in the picture is not helpful. The best way to understand is to adjust our monitors by switching them off and then wandering the earth. I think no image on this page comes close to the real life experiences that exist outside. (I took a wander with my mind over the pictures on this page, it would be so cool to go to 1/10th of these places, wow, alas) Penyulap ☏
  • That's nice. Now, maybe you'd like to note the featured picture criteria? That's what we're meant to be judging this against. J Milburn (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed, Featured picture criteria Number 1. "a high technical standard. Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements." such as having a wall in the picture. Sure, there may indeed be valid reasons to oppose, but the lack of a wall doesn't convince me it should be opposed. Penyulap ☏
• Oppose. I'm inclined to go with J Milburn on this one. The image is striking in an abstract way, but unfortunately it is only very tangentially linked to the articles in which it appears. Penyulap's comment above is certainly interesting, but it doesn't reflect the way that this image is discussed in our articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per J Milburn. Dusty777 17:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, Irānshahr (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Again, where has this been advertised? J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added it to WProject Math. Iran, Islam and Architecture, as they are bannered on the article tp's. Something I do not know, can a candidate category be added for symmetry ? I'm not familiar with process. Penyulap ☏
    • Penyulap, can I ask what brought you to the discussion? J Milburn (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Certainly. My technostalker seemed unusually reclusive the last few days after the bot he wrote for me was approved. So I stalked him here, just to have a look what he was up to. I have nothing but a general knowledge interest in Mosques, Math, and Islamic art, and had no intention to comment until I came across the comment that the wall should be in the picture. As an artist and many other things, it was obvious to me what the artist who did this roof was after, of course we can't ask him, I mean the guy is dead by 400 years, so your opinion is as valid as mine on that topic. But you can get a grasp of his intention when you fill the screen and center your focus. You know I think that the problem here is the venue in time and space. We can't see life 400 years ago, but I have to tell you this, it was much more quiet, slower, and there was no constant bombardment of the senses by audio-visual information. You have to be very obscene with the illusions, like this kind of thing so that people can get any idea of what is going on. (actually this is a shade quieter). 400 years ago people usually only heard music at church, a cathederal is not designed for people to look at the preacher (think columns), that is not the point of the cathederal. you come into a different (sometimes darker) world of sound, where you switch off your eyes and drift with your mind on the emotions expressed by the choirs and in the hymns. The real world is in a galaxy far away. I would define regular sunday mass at a cathederal  this way so the listener can see the shuffling shoes and restless kids, I'd define the monastery  this way to show the robes are not as itchy as they look, and I'd call  this music I just stole for my personal use thank you very much. Similar principle here in the mosque, but it's a visual, durr. The journey defined by this image is personal, not communal, one pilgrim at a time, and they wander in on any day at any time in the summerlike heat in their white robes, are they thirsty ? I think everyone in the middle east is thirsty. I'd say that to go there and experience the mosque is the only way to know how to define it, and even then, everyone comes away with a different story, but I'd say this ceiling tells a popular story. To be honest, I haven't looked at the walls myself. But I am captured instantly, if only briefly, by the message of this image. Penyulap ☏

• Support: Great image, underrepresented area (math). CRGreathouse (t | c) 06:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: This image illustrate a rotational symmetry of order 32 (if my count is correct). This should be added in Symmetry#Rotational symmetry. This image also illustrate another kind of symmetry, not explicitly described in the article, namely the product of a rotation of angle 2π/64 by a homothety. In other words, this image is an excellent but poorly used illustration for the article symmetry. D.Lazard (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If the image is excellent but the usage poor, it should not be promoted on the English Wikipedia. Here, the usage of featured pictures is highly important, as opposed to Commons, where we are judging on just the picture. J Milburn (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • it's not rotational symmetry of order 32 (see my !vote below). I make it 8, with reflections, so the group is D₈. But it's far from obvious and I may have missed some detail.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Project and talk page notifications -- Colin°^Talk 07:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per lack of EV as currently used. Also concerned about possible canvassing. Clegs (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support I hadn't wanted to vote, but if there is any canvassing going on, then I had better vote to help stamp it out. Some may say I am following a fashion of wiki politics, others will say I look beyond such juvenile pursuits and want to give an honest opinion of this image. I don't care which they say. For I at least, looked at this image. Penyulap ☏
  • Yes, again, we know you like the image, but this isn't Commons, we're not just judging the image. Please take a look at the criteria. J Milburn (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
    • is that the same page that I cut and pasted from yesterday when I quoted "1. a high technical standard. Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements." or is it a different page entirely ? And are you sure this isn't commons ? Penyulap ☏ 14:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
      • There are eight criteria to judge images against. You've picked part of one. The major different between this and Commons is the additional requirement wrt encyclopaedic value in actual articles. Colin°^Talk 14:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Well I go by a Dead poet standard and don't follow the two dozen criteria here, (more a matter of ripping out the page and trusting my own artistic instincts). I only mentioned one because someone else brought up having a wall in the picture. I honestly have no problem with this image. Penyulap ☏
          • If you're not going to pay attention to the criteria, then, with all due respect, you should not be taking part in the process, and I would hope any closer ignores your comments. I also do not see anything wrong with the picture itself; as I said, this would be a decent candidate on Commons (and yes, I'm sure that this isn't Commons, whatever that's supposed to mean). However, we are not just judging the artistic elements of the picture, which seems to make up the entirety of your vote. There are a great number of other factors- copyright, correspondence with reality and usefulness in the encyclopedia being three elements of easily equal importance to artistic value. The criteria quite clearly note that artistic value comes second to encyclopedic value (of course, you're above such pettiness, so I speak to others only...) If you want to play at being an art critic, that's fine, I'm sure you'll get a lot out of it, but here is not the place to do it. J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
            • You've misunderstood. I've read the entire list, it makes intuitive sense and as I read it first time I cross off mentally everything that I'd do naturally, only looking for unusual things that I actually need to remember, but there are none. I don't need to refer to it ever again as it's intuitive. Strangely, you don't seem to remember it, as I had quoted you part of it, and then a day later you'd asked if I had seen it, but that's all cool. Engineers need years of study into lift, drag, thrust, airframe construction theory, aircraft engines and avionics get so darn complicated, and then the pilots even after years of experience still need a co-pilot and a heap of checklists whereas a bird simply spreads its wings and takes to the sky. Some people can sing naturally, I can't and no amount of training will change that. We all have talents and weaknesses. You asked if I know where I am, in regards to 'this is not commons', well yes I do, I contribute to wikipedias in dozens of languages, and I speak without words. I write PURELY visual documentations where pictures are the only language like a FAQ for a visual gallery of barnstars and a a robot console (which needs one more pic I haven't done yet). If I need an image to make another image I don't need to read up documentation to tell me how to choose the best ones, actually that would take me weeks even months for one days work if I had to process at that speed. But written documentation is very important and it is very important that you do read that list, at least daily I guess, as you had asked me if I had read it the next day remember ? So read that list and you can't go wrong. Anyhow, there are lots of people arrived to help with other problems like if it has EV for symmetry, experts from wikiproject math. How about the guy who says stuff like "the product of a rotation of angle 2π/64 by a homothety" pretty darn impressive that, I have no idea what on earth he is talking about, but he talks the talk, he can see the same thing I saw, that the image is nothing but net, but he can translate it into proper mathematical language, which is what you're after, yes language ? Anyhow, I don't know how things work around here, so I agree, nobody should listen to me. I have too many other things to do than explain more than why a wall doesn't belong in the pic. Anyhow we are going to cop a spanking if we don't take this off to our talkpages. I'm very happy to continue discussion on my talkpage if you like, but we'd best stop here. Penyulap ☏
• Support(tentative): It seems like an excellent picture. Admittedly this is the first chance I've had to apply the guidelines here. Can someone explain which guidelines are being used to object to the picture? I have been looking and can't decide. Rschwieb (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Criterion 5. The usage in the Mosque article is not appropriate for it to pass as a featured picture- the article is woefully over-illustrated, and this particular shot is just tacked onto the end of a gallery. The particular section of the symmetry article, too, is over-illustrated, and, to make matters worse, the use of this kind of symmetry in Islamic architecture is not discussed at all. It would be like promoting a picture of a flower for the illustration it adds to an article on human beauty. Essentially, we are not just judging the image itself (I do not challenge that the image itself is an interesting one- as I said, it would make an excellent candidate at Commons), but the extent to which it contributes to the articles. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose low EV.--GoP_T^C_N 18:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per other comments above, the image meets every other part of the criteria except for Point 5. I've been invited here from WP Architecture and, from what I can see, the picture neither helps understand the Mosque, or symmetry in architecture. The other three pictures in the mosque article are far more descriptive of the ceiling (which I didn't realise was a circular dome until I saw them). Symmetry in architecture is far better illustrated by building facades, vistas etc. rather than a technically clever picture of a ceiling pattern. Sorry to disappoint the author! Sionk (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Doesn't "Symmetry in architecture" create a non-existent category ? like "Mosques in Mathematics" few images would explain the new subject. Is it separate categories or mix and (mis)match ? Penyulap ☏
    • Not sure what you mean. The photo is used to illustrate the 'Symmetry in Architecture' section of the article. To be honest, if it wasn't for this 'vote' I would remove the photo and replace it with something more central to the subject. Sionk (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Part of the point for its inclusion there is that it illustrates a different type of symmetry, actually a dihedral symmetry, rather than the very common bilateral symmetry you would see in building facade. You need this particular view to show the symmetric relation precisely. --Salix (talk): 23:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Everything else, as the opposes admit, is great; the EV would be less disputable if the article on the mosque didn't have that gallery of images as this is the only one of only the ceiling. Nothing a little editing of the article can't fix. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Tangetal thinking there. should be an oppose vote really, as the article won't get written any time soon, and the image won't fit until the writing is done. But then, does the writing get done before the images inspire, the classic chicken and egg paradox. Penyulap ☏
• Weak oppose I think generally speaking a detail of the interior of a dome has high enough EV to become FP, but here what disturbs me is that is no element of scale, is not clear what extent of the dome is depicted, and the landscape format is distracting from the central character of the space. I would much more prefer a square format, depicting the whole dome. --ELEKHH^T 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Image is used in gallery for primary article, thus fails criteria there, and has ALMOST ZERO EV in secondary article, so imho fails the criteria there. Unless the primary article actually talks about the ceiling and uses this image to illustrate that section and not in a gallery, OR there is RELIABLE SOURCES that use this ceiling in relation to Symmetry then it has ZERO EV for that article. Based on this I would vote for speedy close with failure to meet the minimum requirements for nomination. — raekyt 09:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Robert Byron's quote in the Lotfollah mosque "I know of no finer example of the Persian Islamic genius than the interior of the dome" followed by quite an extensive quote describing it. So we have an exemplar of the Islamic artistic style which builds upon their long tradition of using symmetric patterns in their art work, at the time they were much ahead of western use of symmetrical designs. (I think the article has expanded this section considerably since more of the previous comments so the EV is now much stronger). --Salix (talk): 23:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking closer it does have a lot of different symmetries going on, each "petal" is bilaterally symmetric, further the 3rd, 5th and 7th rings have two lines of reflection. The choice of 32 is no accident as being a power of 2 allow rotation symmetry by 180°, 90°, 45°, 22.5° and 11.25°. The design allows some spirals to be seen, a feature of the rotation+homothety mentioned above.--Salix (talk): 00:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per J. Milburn. The building in question is gorgeous and well-deserving of a featured-picture-quality image. Sadly, the nominated image isn't it. Spikebrennan (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• oppose very nice to look at but of very poor encyclopaedic value, both as an architectural picture per other editors and as a far too complex an example of symmetry: see how long it takes you to read off exactly what it's symmetry group is (you can't do this from the thumbnail).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)