Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/HR 8799 Orbiting Exoplanets

HR 8799
Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017  at 20:23:15 (UTC)
 * Reason:moving direct image of exoplanets... enough said
 * Articles in which this image appears:List of directly imaged exoplanets, HR 8799
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/Space/Looking_out
 * Creator:Huntster


 * Support as nominator – Brian Everlasting (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Very cool. But do I see some matting or something in the full size version? Is that avoidable? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I contemplated nominating this myself. --Janke | Talk 09:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Bammesk (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is the in-image credit necessary? They are (to put it mildly) discouraged by the image use policy; see WP:WATERMARK. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's okay here, but in the article it would be a problem. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Another instance of spiting the face. If someone can remove the credits without affecting the useful data in any way that would fine, but there's no reason to restrict its usage just because its creators' names are shown. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Except watermarks are against policy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for extraordinary EV and just the general awesome factor. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Jobas (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I rather like this animation. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose until watermarks are removed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Chris: In this case, all the info (date, scale & creators) is a part of the image, and Wiki guidelines state: "Exceptions may be made for historic images when the credit or title forms an integral part of the composition." IMO, that applies to this image. --Janke | Talk 07:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the credit an integral part of the composition? If this were a painting with the artist's signature or something, sure, but a digital signature on a GIF? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a derivative work published by and credited to individuals, not an organization, and no peer review. I think any manipulation (including name removal) is inappropriate. Bammesk (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support TomStar81 (Talk) 14:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As I said above, the in-image credits are contrary to the image use policy. I'm really not sure I buy the arguments that are being made in favour of the presence of the watermark. What is exceptional about the watermark in this image? Josh Milburn (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment to Chris Woodrich and Josh Milburn: Note "Pillar # 5" WP:5P5 ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose until watermarks are removed. Mattximus (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is so important an image, that I edited the watermark, but left the date & size info. Satisfied? Note that this is now an OGV file, which needs to be handled differently than a GIF. If someone can convert it to a "looping" GIF, go ahead! --Janke | Talk 22:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Janke. Converted file is File:HR 8799 Orbiting Exoplanets (no credits).gif. However, I will say that I don't like that the file has been through so many conversions: From YouTube WebM → GIF → credits edited → OGV → GIF. There is loss to the quality. The creditless version is there for use, but I would still push for the original version that suffers as little loss as possible. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither do I like the multiple conversions, but I have no way of editing a video gif - had to convert it to a standard video codec, and then after editing in Final Cut, further convert it to OGV, since Wiki doesn't accept h.264, MP4 and the like. But in this case, the slight loss of resolution really doesn't matter, since the original file is already quite fuzzy. --Janke | Talk 07:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ALT only. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Original now replaced with watermark-free version. --Janke | Talk 07:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 21:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Added image to Space/Understanding instead. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)