Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/STS-116e05968 Spacewalk December 12, 2006
STS-116e05968 Spacewalk December 12, 2006
- Reason
- Although there was a recent candidate of the same subject, which was featured, I think this an even more beautiful picture.
- Articles this image appears in
- none so far, but you could add it to STS-116 and probably some others too
- Creator
- NASA
- Nominator
- Wutschwlllm
- Support — Wutschwlllm 23:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Maybe featured-worthy but we shouldn't have two featured images of the same spacewalk, and the other one is better --frothT 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Now hold on, why is it that we can have Noclip 04:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)]
- Yes it is a double standard, but I support it. I find it much more important to encourage original contributions. Whether we feature a NASA pic or not won't have any impact on the pics those astronouts take. --Dschwen(A) 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's interesting, because I recently nominated Noclip 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)]
- Because your nom had glaring examples of duplicate people :D --frothT 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Or, should we say, two images of the same subject in the same image? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- In fact, the "duplicate people problem" has been addressed and corrected in an edit. Therefore, this should not be the reason for not promoting the image (so much for the consensus; how deos consensus work, if people vote because of problems, that don't exist anymore and these votes are counted after all?). -Wutschwlllm 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because your nom had glaring examples of duplicate people :D --frothT 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's interesting, because I recently nominated
- Yes it is a double standard, but I support it. I find it much more important to encourage original contributions. Whether we feature a NASA pic or not won't have any impact on the pics those astronouts take. --Dschwen(A) 17:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Now hold on, why is it that we can have
- Oppose - The other image is better: I find the composition and colouration more attractive, and it's sharper. STS-116 is well-illustrated already and I don't see how this would add anything useful. In future please ensure you follow the criteria - images should be nominated because they illustrate an article well, not stuffed into articles just to back up a nomination. --YFB ¿ 00:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Jorcoga Hi!01:55, Tuesday, January 30 2007
- Oppose The other one is better for various reasons, a major one for me being that you can recognize the land masses in it (NZ). TotoBaggins 02:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Procedural Opposenot in any article. Write an article about Curbeam, add the picture and I support. ~ trialsanderrors 07:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)- Nevermind, we already got one: Robert Curbeam. I put it in there, Support if it sticks. ~ trialsanderrors 07:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with YFB, I've said it all along...--Dschwen(A) 17:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)