Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Terraforming

Image:MarsTransitionV.jpg

 * Reason:Very encyclopedic high quality picture. Impressive.
 * Articles this image appears in:Terraforming
 * Creator:User:Ittiz


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Tomer T 17:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support if we can definitely agree that this isn't original research (at least, no more so than other successful FPs which arguably contain some original research). Maybe it's covered under the umbrella of "artistic license". &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-07-09 17:51Z
 * Support I like it. 8thstar 18:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This, if anything, is "original research"... ;-) Seriously, the whole idea of terraforming is more or less science fiction, so I regard the enc level of this as pretty low. --Janke | Talk 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Encyclopedic for terraforming which is very often brought up for Mars. Whatever OR is only in choosing how to represent a well-discussed subject. Adam Cuerden talk 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support It's an original work of art, but I don't think that is unacceptable. After all, many of the diagrams that become FPs are original works of art as well.  It has enough enc value because of how it is used in the article, which is a very good, well-written enc article.  If you agree with me about that (and you don't have to of course), it seems to meet all other criteria, and is quite cool.  That said, I may prefer the horizontal version to this vertical version. Can someone please post it for me?  I'm not getting it to format properly.  It is linked to from the main image.   Zakolantern 00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with original works of art; I am more likely to support the original artwork of a Wikipedian than some random online user. What I'm not fine with are original works of art that present situations that may not be the result of actual research, which eliminates any encyclopedic value. Sure, it looks nice, but how do you know you're actually be informed, and not misinformed, by this image? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-07-10 13:34Z
 * Oppose, I'd be fine with an artistic rendition, like we have on the dyna-soar article, or Newton's cradle or several others, but it has to be based strictly on known information. There's nothing to indicate that this image is accurate, so I don't want to feature it unless we can add some information about what sorts of known techniques are being depicted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Terraforming certainly is science fiction, and this is a remarkable illustration of it. I don't see the need to be pulling Ittiz up and asking to inspect his/her artistic license. If the image was meant to illustrate a particular proposed method of terraforming, then accuracy may be more important, but instead it illustrates the concept as a whole. Images are always original, but it's a stretch to call this "research". —Pengo 02:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a fantasy. --bodnotbod 11:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - how is the water supposed to have gotten there; are we supposed to have transported water from earth via rockets or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs)
 * It comes from melted subterranean ice oceans and melted polar caps. Debivort 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer the rocket method. Sounds a lot more fun. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Terraforming is a hypothesis and nowhere near an exact science. I don't believe anyone can accurately portray how terroforming will really turn out. In that light the best we can do is conjure up images how we think it'll work, and this is a really good example of that, to illustrate terraforming itself and not User:Ittiz's opinion of how terraforming will work. -- snowolf D4   (  talk  /  @   ) 17:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support There seems to be a high degree of attention to technical accuracy, at least in the sense that lower elevations flood first. Debivort 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support - The fundamental idea of terraforming comes down to this: "add water". This image does a good job of illustrating what such a change to a dry planet might look like.  At right is another FP that simplifies and takes a best guess at the parts that are unknowable (to civilians), but still does an excellent job of conveying the idea of the article.  --TotoBaggins 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to explain my reasoning for support further. Yes, at the moment terraforming is science fiction, outside the realm of current technology.  But it is also very throughly discussed; if you don't believe that, please see the article in question.  This image does a great job of illustrating that article.  That article is detailed and footnoted enough that it is impossible to argue it is not suited for Wikipedia.  Therefore, objections just because the image is fantasy is an opposition that is almost against WP:COI.  Zakolantern 16:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Talk about adding value to the article. This is an impeccable representation of the topic in question. Whether or not it is feasible with present technology is a topic to be discussed within the article. It should NOT stop this image from gaining FP. I prefer the vertical vers. vlad§inger tlk  03:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per NightGyr. And it's original research unless it's already been published in some other source (not this particular illustration, but the particular technique and form of the terraforming depicted.)  Spebudmak 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  per NightGyr. For this to have enc value/verifiability, it would need to specify what published research it's based on. ~ Veledan • Talk 16:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support As the creator of this image I support it.  Many techniques for terraforming Mars have been purposed.  I made this image to best fit the general trend of what they describe.  Basically: Heat Mars up to release CO2 and liquefy water.  Then grow plants to make O2. If needed I can add this to the image as well as any publications which describe the method of terraforming this image depicts. Ittiz 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are the positions of craters, land, sea, and lakes based on actual Martian topography? That would make it worthy of supporting imo, I just want to know it's contibuting some real information. ~ Veledan • Talk 21:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The globe is based on MOLA data from the Mars Global Surveyor. All the shore lines are approximate to where it's believed they would be if all the permafrost on Mars melted. Ittiz 00:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Changed vote per above. ~ Veledan • Talk 23:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

. There seems to be consensus here. MER-C 03:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)