Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The sun

The sun


Sol, as viewed from under an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere at 1 AU. I personally prefer the human view of this star rather than the "orange" pictures normally used, such as the recent sun/earth comparison.

Used in Sun, Star, Solar System and Blue supergiant along with a variety of userboxes; (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.)

Do not, under any circumstances, look directly at the Sun with the naked eye or through any conventional lens or glass.


 * Nominate and support. - Billpg 14:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I support this unique image. Mgiganteus1 14:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't understand the purpose of this image. It dosn't seem to show the actual ball of the sun and only shows optical flare caused by too bright a light shining into the camera. So it's not a picture of the sun but of the rays and other optical artefacts produced in the camera. Sorry, but I can see no encyclopedic value whatever in this picture - Adrian Pingstone 15:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blown highlights in the sun :) j/k. Actually, I can oppose for relatively low resolution and grainy jpg artifacts throughout the image.  I have no problem with an image illustrating "the Sun as seen from Earth" if labeled as such.  That seems encylopedic to me. --Bridgecross 15:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per arpingstone. -- Thelb 4 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose This image isn't so much the sun as the artifacts produced by the camera when looking at the sun. Also, a part of the encyclopedic value of a photo is that it shows something people normally couldn't otherwise see. Unless they're living deep underground or in England, people can see the sun any time they want. Severnjc 21:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is nothing encyclopedic about this picture because its what we see.  If I wanted to see this picture I would go and look at the sun.  No information is given from the picture and its not visually appealing.  --Midnight Rider 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose As several people have already said, this isn't even the sun, so much as lens flare, aside from the low image quality. Thegreenj 00:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not the best Wikipedia has to offer. -- Tewy  03:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose A few days ago, someone tried to have a bit of fun with an image of number 42 (supposdly the answer to whatever). When I saw this image, I thought it'll be a good joke for FPC. This image is seriously not unique, poor quality, can be taken from anywhere on earth by any human being alive with any color camera, and it's not the best wikipedia can offer. Maybe this is a joke too? Arad 04:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm quite serious, I assure you. I like this picture. --Billpg 11:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong opposed This isn't a decent picture. 1. It's not unique. 2.It's not the finest work possible of the sun (an actual picture of the sun from Nasa etc would be even better. 3. It does not truely contribute much to the article, everyone has most likely seen this sun to know what a sun is without the picture. Again, a Nasa picture would be more suitable. --Steven 01:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - wouldn't it be interesting to use a camera obscura to get a good image of the sun? Just an idea--Niro5 18:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Rather boring photo. . 23:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

--Nautica Shad e  s  16:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)