Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Space Shuttle Atlantis launches from KSC on STS-132

Space Shuttle Atlantis's last fight

Reason: The only other launch photo we have as a FP is File:Space Shuttle Columbia launching.jpg which is rather poor quality. This one is an amazing shot of a historic flight.
Articles in which this image appears: STS-132 (for Original) and Space Shuttle (for Alt 1)
FP category for this image: Aeronautics and aviation/Space
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator --— raeky T 02:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Especially like the smoke plume to the right, seems like there's a dynamic motion. --I'ḏ♥One 05:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (weak) Oppose alternate 1 Considering the amazing-ness of getting a photograph that close of a rocket as it takes off when I think clearance is like most of a mile away at least, that's very good, but it has a lot of blurring and shakiness. It should probably just be a Valued pic. --I'ḏ ♥One 14:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Like it a lot, technically great and up to standards. JFitch (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wanna go on one!!! Oh and good picture, high tech standard etc... Gazhiley (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a little dark, but it's obvious why. Eye-catching, good EV, high quality. What are those ropes attached to the rocket and trailing off the image? J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From another shot of the launch (which is also pretty amazing that I just found) those wires are on the tower behind the shuttle. — raeky T 13:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And just for kicks, I added that picture as an alt... I kinda like it's angle. — raeky T 13:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any chance it can be Nom'd seperately? I like both... Gazhiley (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure... we wouldn't need two nominations if 5 people in here say they want both to be FP's then we can just promote both with this one nomination... They'd both need to be in articles, the second one isn't in an article yet. Support second one as well. — raeky T 22:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        They'd both have to independently meet all the criteria, including the EV requirement. When both show the same thing, it's difficult to see how they both significantly improve the article. Sure, a reader may very reasonably think "I wonder what the launch looked like?" but seeing one of these images, they wouldn't then think "hmmm, I wonder what this launch looked like from a slightly different angle?" J Milburn (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~, and I almost want to vote support for the second one too, though the angle is less encyclopaedic and more dramatic. --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing wrong with a dramatic angle so long as it clearly and accurately illustrates the event and object in question, in that case it just makes it a more interesting picture! - Zephyris _Talk 19:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh fine, support both. :P --Golbez (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 That is the rarer view we seldom see. The first view is all too common. Greg L (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support both P. S. Burton (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 09:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Alt 1 Quality is not there, per IdLoveOne. I am neutral on the original. Jujutacular ^talk 15:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 Considering the difficulty of getting that shot, I can easily overlook its flaws. Its wow-facter also trumps the original by at least 10¹² (plus or minus). upstate NYer 03:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly opposed to promoting both. I think either would be a good FP, but they show the same thing. We do not need two FPs of this subject. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? If both are good enough then why discriminate? I'm sure this wouldn't be the first subject to have 2 FP's of... Gazhiley (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - EV requirement. Two images showing exactly the same thing can't both have EV. Sure, we could have a load of FPs of a bird species (male, female, juvenile, winter plumage, etc etc all in the same article) but these two images would serve to illustrate exactly the same thing in the article, so far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Technically by the different angles the alt shows far more of the launch platform and structure therefore is higher EV on that, then the original. ;-) — raeky T 13:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then feature the alt? J Milburn (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Or should we promote both? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9 supports for Original, no direct opposes.

7 explicit supports for Alt (plus one indirect by Gazhiley), 2 direct opposes for Alt and one implied oppose by J Milburn.

8:3 if you take the indirect and implied, is 72% support. That would seem to indicate it would pass too. — raeky T 03:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my oppose to weak oppose only. --I'ḏ ♥One 16:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a serious problem with promoting both- I would imagine most who voted "support both" didn't actually mean "I would support having two featured pictures showing exactly the same thing to cram into the article next to each other". J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not used in the same article, they're properly used in separate articles to illustrate different things. If the voters read the previous comments then they knew very well what supporting both meant, imho. — raeky T 14:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but, again, why is the second one better than the first for illustrating that in particular? Or vice versa? It seems to me that we have two very nice pictures showing the same thing. That's all well and good, but that doesn't mean we should promote them both. The usage of the first image has more EV (the second image is just "this is a cool picture of one that's gonna be retired soon") and clearly has more support. Regardless of the merits of the images, I think it's fairly clear that that should be the one promoted. J Milburn (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, there's fairly clearly a procedural problem with nominating two separate images for two different purposes in the same nomination- we offer alts as "perhaps it should be this instead", rather than "also, this". If, as you claim, the two images derive their EV from different articles, then the fact they are of the same thing is incidental- it's the equivilent of me nominating an image of a fish and an image of a galaxy in the same nomination. If you want the second image to be promoted, I think, as it is now an image unrelated to the first, it should really have its own nomination, rather than getting tacked on here. J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, it's not standard procedure, the second was offered as a alt, but Gazhiley wanted to promote both, and no one objected to turning this into a double nomination to simplify things. So thats where we're at. Nothing expressly prohibits not having multiple images in one nomination, remember the recent elemental gas discharge tube nomination, each of those was a separate subject driving their EV in separate articles... — raeky T 00:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were, for all intents and purposes, the same image, used in the same way. This is not comparable. That's like saying that because an album cover can be used under a template non-free use rationale in an article on the album, it's legitimate to copy-paste the rationale of a logo in a company article to a painting in an article on the artist. That nomination was about saving hot air- if we promoted one, it was obvious we would promote them all- certainly not so here. And no, there's is no explicit guideline against it, but we don't explicitly have guidelines against a lot of things... There's no explicit guideline against renominating an image as soon as it fails, but I'm sure you'd think I was a dick if I did it. "There's not a rule against it!!!" is not an argument in favour of doing something. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't part of the original discussion here, but looking back and reading through the comments I think the consensus is pretty clear: both doesn't mean one or the other, it means the two of them. The images are used in different articles individually with different purposes. If it comes to it, the voters should be contacted and asked to clarify their intentions. That would resolve the issue completely. Cowtowner (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Space Shuttle Atlantis launches from KSC on STS-132.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Promoted File:Space Shuttle Atlantis launches from KSC on STS-132 side view.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is to promote both. In a few months, we should check back to see if they are both stable in the articles. One or both might be suitable for delist in the future. As J Milburn stated earlier, it's hard to say both of these images have sufficient EV for FP since they illustrate the same thing. We also have a recently promoted video showing the launch of this shuttle. Three FPs of the same subject seems like overkill. The shuttle articles are all pretty highly illustrated, though, so perhaps it's reasonable. Regardless, we'll see if they remain stable in the articles. On a completely different note, let's try to keep nominations to just one image apiece in the future. Edits are fine, but completely different shots lead to complicated discussions like this one. Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]