Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/International Space Station after STS-132

International Space Station after STS-132
Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2010 at 14:48:29 (UTC)


 * Reason:This image is a beautiful, technically accurate and high resolution image of the current configuration of the International Space Station, thus possessing high encyclopaedic value for any articles involving the station. The image is public domain, as it was taken by NASA personnel, and has a good English caption on its description page on Commons. In addition, the only manipulation of the image has been to flip it.
 * Articles in which this image appears:International Space Station, Assembly of the International Space Station, STS-132
 * FP category for this image:Space/Getting there
 * Creator:NASA/Crew of STS-132.


 * Support as nominator --Colds7ream (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, if I may suggest a solution to this problem: Why don't you gather images of the ISS from as far back as you can find and create a gif to show the progress of the space station's contruction? In this manner the ISS images can remain featured, and we can create an animation showing the progress of the ISS construction up to its present shape and form. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Comment: Whilst I love the idea of a GIF file with all the assembly stages, I'd be wary of selecting another old configuration of the station as an FP; the whole point is to have the latest one as the FP. Colds7ream (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC) ❌ Well, seeing as no-one seems to like it, and I appear to have inadvertently caused a row, I'll just quietly take my ball home... Colds7ream (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have (admitedly from 2005) an FP already of the ISS and while I don't object to having multiple FP's (hell I even suggested a multiple FP of a subject close to this last week) I don't think is the quality that we have previously been able to obtain... eg 1, 2, 3... I know the latter two aren't the ISS but it shows the quality of pictures available in space... gaz hiley .co.uk  17:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is one of the cases where we need to delist and replace. This image is imo far better than the existing outdated FP (File:ISS_Aug2005.jpg). We should delist the lower rez outdated image and replace with this one the most recent image of the virtually complete structure. There are some issues, like blown highlights, but if you know about space photography it's almost impossible to fix that since the lighting is so harsh in zero atmosphere. That and whats blown appear to be structures that are either mirror finish or white finished. — raeky  t  21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per gazhiley. Greg L (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it's interesting that we have a weaker photo of the same subject already featured, yet people are opposing this on quality grounds. Perhaps someone should nominate the other for delisting? J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I was looking at this picture a week or so ago and thought "Hmm... Could pass, they love rare scientific stuff like this, but... Idk, it's not really sharp and for things like this FPC tends to go for especially large versions." If the other version was brought to a delist vote I think I would vote to keep the one we already have that Raeky linked. It's sharper, and I find the higher angle with the land beneath it to be something we rarely see, because usually we're looking up and aren't actually higher than things like this when we photo them. This one's good, the other I think is better. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  01:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You do understand that the 5 year old version is only a tiny fraction of what the ISS is now? It's was only like half complete back then. It's like featuring a picture of the construction of a building then later someone nominating a picture of the completed structure. Theres a reason it's only real use is in Assembly of the International Space Station and not in the article about the station anymore. — raeky  t  01:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, I know, they add keep adding a piece to it, but I added some sharper recent alts to the right, couldn't just pick one. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  04:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My pref is image 1 - I prefer the background to it, and also there's a less amount of shadow... Would support a nom of that one myself... gaz hiley .co.uk  14:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we please please please not have another nomination where several different pictures (as opposed to several versions of the same picture) are under consideration? Not only does this piss all over EV concerns, but it overstepts the role of FPC (as we end up in a position where we're telling article writers which images they should include) and are bloody difficult to close. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mr Milburn - I'm just saying that if nom'd I'd support pic 1 but def oppose the current nom... I certainly don't think this should become a multiple pic nom... If anything speedy close this and nom pic 1... but that's just my pref... gaz hiley .co.uk  22:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, however it's a seperate issue to this nom. a request on the talk page of the article would be a good way to go... gaz hiley .co.uk  12:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I kind of like the bg sky of 3 best, though the land in 2's also cool. @J Milburn, should we not nominate alts? -- I'ḏ ♥  One  07:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These are several different pictures, showing different things, being used for different things. They are not several versions of the same image when we're trying to work out what to do with them (or two different images where the article writer is not sure which would be stronger in a certain usage). It's not FPC's job to say "actually, you used the wrong picture- we've decided that this one is best". If that's not your intention, then you should be opening a new nom anyways, as we are going to need to judge the EV of the other images independently. Can you not see how much of a clusterfuck other recent noms with multiple alts like this have become? Don't do it. J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, now you're mixing up semantics and tripping over your own arguments. I say that bringing up the issue of EV as you define it; That is that this nomination is for the International Space Station (ISS). A picture was nominated here that already was not going pass for its lackluster quality, I added some images of the same subject of much higher quality. The proposed picture wasn't nominated to depict any particular activity of the ISS, just the ISS itself but still was of mediocre quality. If it were showing something specific like an arm then the voting on that might be different, but for the sake and purpose of this nomination the images I added are equally valid because this nomination is supposed to showcase the greatest image of the ISS we can possibly get and by your definition of "encyclopedic value" any one of them is valid because as you've put it that's "what the images are being used for". Where votes fall are for the voters to decide, and it's not my fault if people are too wishy-washy to just look at a couple of pictures and decide which they like best or if the nominator made the mistake of not choosing the best image in the first place. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  20:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The images are used for different things- you're just getting into semantics and lawyering your way around here. The original image was nommed on the basis that it is the lead image in the article on the station, so it shows the station- the other images are not used like that. If you think they should be FP, nominate them. Don't throw them in here on the pretense that they're the same thing. Alts should be reserved for colour fixes and such, not different fricking images altogether. This should be common sense, especially considering the confusion and damage you have caused throwing alts into the mix in the past. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the nominator has chosen an image that is not up to standards, it will fail. It's not then the job of everyone else to say "yeah, that image is shit, but this loosely related image is great! I'll not bother providing a rationale or explaining the EV, that's already been done for the other picture, and why bother doing it again just because it's different?" God, you've got fricking nerve accusing me of "tripping over [my] own arguments". Stop doing it, and stop being so fricking cocky. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, J, you've got nerve telling me I have to follow your rules which aren't even FPC policy, that is cockiness. You've got nerve coming here defining things like "encyclopedia value" the way you want and failing to be consistent in it. You've got nerve for continuing to argue anything other than that this is what it is: A nomination for for the best image of the ISS available. This isn't it, any one out of the four is valid and if you're going to try Wikilawyer out of the fact that you are wrong you're gonna have to do A LOT better than that. "Different images! Different things!" ain't cutting it. Different images, different quality, same thing. Scroll up, read Raeky's last point, then look to your right to see that all the images are roughly the same age. The fact that no one else has voted for Colds7ream's well-meaning nomination pretty much proves that no one is interested in such a poor quality nom. It's 2010, we can do better than that crap and I and a bunch of other users aren't afraid to express our opinions on quality when we see fit, that's a major aspect of FPC criteria. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what, J Milburn? I actually took my own advice and looked up the subject, guess what? It lead me to find out that STS-132 only added one node to the ISS. I say wait for STS-133 later this year and hope they'll have higher quality images, otherwise, what? Are we gonna keep replacing the ISS FP until it's completed. All the STS-132 ISS images came out kind of poorly compared to what NASA can do, I think I stay opposed. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the argument, I'm just saying NASA can do so much better, they've triggered other arguments. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  16:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Raeky, the station is much larger now and probably is more interesting now. Gut Monk (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Jujutacular  talk 18:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)