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 &mdash; 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 --⁪froth T 00:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Now hold on, why is it that we can have two of nearly the same image (also this one, in which case not even the angle but just the time of day is different) and of the same subject featured when they are created by Diliff? Why the double standard? 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 an original image taken from a different angle and at a different (and in my opinion more encyclopedic) time of day than Diliff's already featured version which failed partly because it was concluded that two images of the same subject shouldn't be featured. Noclip 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because your nom had glaring examples of duplicate people :D --⁪froth T 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)
 * 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. Jor co ga  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 Oppose not 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)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)