Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Apollo 11 Photograph of Buzz Aldrin

Delist and Replace: Apollo 11 Photograph of Buzz Aldrin

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2013 at 12:37:21 (UTC)

Reason: The edited version cuts out a very important antenna on the space suit, just to make the picture seem more 'harmonious.' The original is more evenly lit, of a higher quality, and, as the authentic exposure, is more honest; the actual exposure is encyclopedia material, not the altered NASA publicity version, which has sadly given fuel to speculation. See the captions to the right.
Articles this image appears in: Original Unaltered Image: 1960s, Apollo 11, Buzz Aldrin, Cold War, Examination of Apollo Moon photographs, Extra-vehicular activity, History of spaceflight, History of the United States (1964–80), Human spaceflight, List of spaceflight records, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Of a Fire on the Moon, Omega Speedmaster, Space exploration, Terrestrial Analogue Sites

The Altered Version Appears in 18 Articles

Previous nomination/s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg
Nominator: Indefatigable2 (talk)

Delist and Replace — Indefatigable2 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't disagree with that logic, if not just because of the lighting. The current FP is an FP on a number of different projects. Should someone alert them as well? upstate NYer 02:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support D&R~~ --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying my vote per my comments below. I

Strong Support Delist of current FP as the altered colors greatly reduce EV, and
Support the Original Unaltered Image as it meets the FPC criteria. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the image's iconic status contributes to EV, consideration should probably be given to the version the public would be most familiar with. The Blue Marble has the upside-down version featured, for example. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The copy we have of the famous version (existing FP) looks like it has been scanned from a print (magazine or poster) and is much higher contrast with less tonal detail and some vignetting. However, the "original" version actually looks a bit low-contrast on the suit. I wonder if we can get a better quality version of the famous crop? The "original" version's crop is just bad and no wonder it wasn't used directly for publicity. The claim that the "edited version cuts out a very important antenna on the space suit, just to make the picture seem more 'harmonious.'" is completely false. Both images lack the antenna. There is no such thing as "the authentic exposure", though our copy of the famous version does look more manipulated. For the purpose of a thumbnail in a WP article, the famous one still wins imo. Colin°^Talk 11:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC) On NASA's site there is this version which is different again, though is cropped at the bottom and has the usual NASA web-page problems with small size and heavy JPG compression. Colin°^Talk 16:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not 'completely false.' On the original, the antenna is naturally excluded from the image, while on the altered version, a black space is created where in reality there would be none. The antenna was indeed 'cut out'; in adding an arbitrary black space, the editors could have opted to add the antenna, but decided not to, and thus, cut it out. That is the official description of the altered image. The altered image, while perhaps useful for publicity and perhaps recognizable in its own right, is dishonest for an encyclopedia, as it depicts the Apollo 11 spacesuit in a false way. That is my contention. Indefatigable2 (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have a source for your "harmonious" conjecture that quotes the technician who created the famous version? People extend sky (space here) in photographs all the time. People rotate photographs all the time. What people don't generally do (because it is dishonest) is paint things in that weren't captured. I guess the photo editor didn't even notice the missing antenna or didn't consider it important (which it isn't). But that's just a guess. Your description of this as "cutting out" the antenna is just bending words. All photographs misrepresent reality.
  - Let's put this into perspective and forget for now pixel peeping issues with the actual JPGs we've got. The first image is a great historic photograph of a man on the moon. A man on the moon for goodness sake! Wow. The second "original" pic is a photographic mistake. You can hear a million people going "Can't you even hold the camera properly for crying out loud?". Only a nerd would like the second photograph. Who gives a **** about a little white wire? Colin°^Talk 07:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose D&R. Per above comments. They sent a man to the moon, not an antenna. This is a great picture of a man on the moon. The second picture should only appear in articles that discuss Armstrong's lack of photographic abilities or conspiracy theories concerning the missing antenna. I strongly suggest the original be used in other articles. This is a classic example of missing the big picture. Further, I suggest Wikipedia/Commons continues to pester NASA to release better quality JPGs. -- Colin°^Talk 07:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the antenna issue is a bit silly. You are right, the image is about a man being on the moon. That said, I think we should faithfully reproduce the landscape that was there, which I think is clear is not done in the current FP (just look at the colors of the lunar surface). That said, I would very much welcome a rotated version that reconstructs the missing parts of the spacesuit (antenna or not, don't matter to me) so long as the colors are faithful to the original image. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wingtipvortex, I see you still support "D&R". Bear in mind the primary purpose of an image in these articles is to be a thumbnail (secondary purpose is a link to a high-resolution copy, and thus to alternate versions even). Which of these two images (at thumbnail size, not the size here) is better for our articles? I'm concerned that FP has this "&R" option for images appearing in a couple of dozen articles. FP has no editorial power, though opinions expressed here are valued. The real decision is always made on the article talk page for each article -- though one might often take a consensus here as enough to be bold and edit directly first. Since this picture is so highly used, perhaps a note on the article talk pages and wikiprojects would be useful? On another point, I would be happy to take the higher-quality TIFF from NASA and add a bit of space above just like the famous one to see if we can reproduce the image but with a better source. What do you think? I wouldn't be happy to draw in bits of spacesuit, however, and I would oppose that especially if done by a wikipedian rather than NASA themselves. -- Colin°^Talk 06:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, I think that the NASA original is better for the articles, for the reasons I stated before. I think we have misinterpreted the "&R" of our power. The way I interpret it, our power does not extend to replacing an image in an article. Our power is the ability to remove the FP status of an image(which we gave it) and giving it to another that better meets the FP criteria. How the replacements happen in the articles is not something we should determine here, though each individual editor may do as they so please (either being bold and replacing it, or taking it to articles' talk pages). In fact, it would be nice to have a bot that automatically puts a notice on articles' talk pages when a FP in the article as been replaced by another.

Not sure how I would feel about us doing the modifications. I too would rather have NASA be the one that did that.

To clarify a bit of my opinion, I am opposed to the current FP keeping its FP status, as it is not an accurate representation (colors, not spacesuit or antenna) of what was on the moon, and this its EV is not enough for our standards. If the current FP was used in an article about "NASA publicity versions of images," I could see it having enough EV for that or other articles where appropriate. But as far as accurately representing what Armstrong and Aldrin photographed on the moon, it is my view that the offered 'replacement' in this nom does that much better and thus, in my opinion, is the one that merits FP status. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current FP, oppose D&R: The version most recognised publicly has the higher EV here, rather than an image which much of the general public has never seen. (Note how the missing antennae has its own EV for conspiracy theories) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current featured picture, oppose D&R. The one that is currently featured is the one that everybody knows. Echoing Colin, however, is it possible to find a better scan of the famous version? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]