Talk:Rimouski
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Pbsouthwood in topic A new pagebanner?
| This article contains content imported from the English Wikipedia article on Rimouski. View the page revision history for a list of the authors. |
A new pagebanner?
[edit]I've adapted a photo from my own archives as a possible replacement for this article's pagebanner. I think it's clearly better than the present banner as the skyline is closer to the foreground and more clearly visible, and depicts a time of year and weather conditions that are more amenable to visitors to Rimouski. However, I would like to hear the rest of the community's opinions on this before I supersede Peter Southwood's original banner with my own work. For ease of comparison, I've linked to both banners below. Let's hear what you folks think. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I take your points, but I find Peter's banner prettier. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Peter's banner is prettier, but it doesn't have much detail. It could be any large town in a snowscape. Andre's does give an idea what the architecture looks like. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- In point of fact, I don't think Peter's banner really has much going for it aesthetically. The problem is its odd, off-putting composition. The bottom half is a nondescript field of snow, the upper third or so is the St. Lawrence River in the distance, and in the middle - what's supposed to me the main thrust of the subject matter - is a bird's-eye view of an extremely narrow slice of the cityscape that's so miniaturized that you can't make out anything. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was just going from a side-by-side comparison without any knowledge of the city itself. The non-descript field of snow may be an important aspect of some places. I have no idea in this instance.
- I do agree that you can't make anything out in the 'snow' picture. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I take the point about individual features of the town being hard to see in Peter's banner. I greatly appreciate your work, AndreCarrotflower, so I hope the criticisms that follow don't seem ungenerous or anything like that. That said, I don't find the view in your banner attractive, with the notable exception of the church(? - the white building). There are several things that bother me about the composition: (1) I don't get pleasure from moving my eye around the picture frame, the way I do while looking at a good painting; (2) it's cut off in a couple of ways that bug me; (3) some ugly buildings to the left are prominent in it. In terms of things being cut off, my first issue is the buildings that are cut off in the foreground of the right side; my second issue is that the greenery that I presume is higher up in the original picture than the buildings, if included, might make the composition more pleasing to look at. But I'm not sure it's essential to add back more to the top of the photo. Would it be possible to cut some of the buildings on the left side from the banner (even if some middle-ground buildings are cut off in the process, but I think just to the right of the maroon building [storehouse?] could be ideal) and also the right-most buildings? If so, the result would be an image I'd find more attractive. If not, do whatever you have to do, as I'm in the minority here. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- While I'm generally a fan of your banners, AndreCarrotflower, I'm afraid I too prefer the snowy one. It is true that the new one gives a more detailed view of the cityscape, but frankly, the skyline in the new picture is not inviting at all to me. I don't think the destination benefits from it. The snowy banner has its shortcomings of course, and it may be more generic, but at least it looks friendlier with the river in the backside and the ugly buildings less visible. And for me, an inviting banner is more important than a more precise one. That said, I will not object if you want to use place the new banner anyway. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I prefer Andre's. More detail. Shows the downtown side nearest, rather then the outer suburbs. I find it more inviting (because I'm not a snow person). I'm just puzzled about refs to the skyline - I can't see the skyline in it. Nurg (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Both are reasonably OK, in my opinion. The snow has an impressive visual effect, and I like the unusual composition. I "vote" for it if the town has snow for most of the year. And for the other if not, even though contrast could be much better, and I guess the buildings on the left don't need to be shown, except if they are an important part of the city's identity for some reason. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- All in all a good illustration of the common wisdom there is no accounting for tastes :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Both are reasonably OK, in my opinion. The snow has an impressive visual effect, and I like the unusual composition. I "vote" for it if the town has snow for most of the year. And for the other if not, even though contrast could be much better, and I guess the buildings on the left don't need to be shown, except if they are an important part of the city's identity for some reason. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I prefer Andre's. More detail. Shows the downtown side nearest, rather then the outer suburbs. I find it more inviting (because I'm not a snow person). I'm just puzzled about refs to the skyline - I can't see the skyline in it. Nurg (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- While I'm generally a fan of your banners, AndreCarrotflower, I'm afraid I too prefer the snowy one. It is true that the new one gives a more detailed view of the cityscape, but frankly, the skyline in the new picture is not inviting at all to me. I don't think the destination benefits from it. The snowy banner has its shortcomings of course, and it may be more generic, but at least it looks friendlier with the river in the backside and the ugly buildings less visible. And for me, an inviting banner is more important than a more precise one. That said, I will not object if you want to use place the new banner anyway. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I take the point about individual features of the town being hard to see in Peter's banner. I greatly appreciate your work, AndreCarrotflower, so I hope the criticisms that follow don't seem ungenerous or anything like that. That said, I don't find the view in your banner attractive, with the notable exception of the church(? - the white building). There are several things that bother me about the composition: (1) I don't get pleasure from moving my eye around the picture frame, the way I do while looking at a good painting; (2) it's cut off in a couple of ways that bug me; (3) some ugly buildings to the left are prominent in it. In terms of things being cut off, my first issue is the buildings that are cut off in the foreground of the right side; my second issue is that the greenery that I presume is higher up in the original picture than the buildings, if included, might make the composition more pleasing to look at. But I'm not sure it's essential to add back more to the top of the photo. Would it be possible to cut some of the buildings on the left side from the banner (even if some middle-ground buildings are cut off in the process, but I think just to the right of the maroon building [storehouse?] could be ideal) and also the right-most buildings? If so, the result would be an image I'd find more attractive. If not, do whatever you have to do, as I'm in the minority here. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
(reindent) In any event, there seems to be no clear consensus in favor of either banner, so I'd like to close the discussion here, invoke status quo bias, and leave the current banner intact. Anyway, the original, uncropped version of my photo is IMO better than the 7:1 aspect version, and would work well as an image in the body of the article, so I'm satisfied. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, only noticed this discussion now. For what it's worth I have no strong feelings either way. I don't know the place at all, and just used what was available at the time during the big banner project. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)