Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pale Blue Dot unaltered.jpg

File:Pale Blue Dot unaltered.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2011 at 04:45:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Pale Blue Dot unaltered.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pale Blue Dot unaltered.jpg

312

318

50

38

442

600

Earth

•  Info created by Voyager 1 Spacecraft, NASA - uploaded by Knowledge Seeker - nominated by Surajt88. Pale Blue Dot is the name given to this 1990 photo of Earth taken from Voyager 1 when its vantage point reached the edge of the Solar System, a distance of roughly 3.7 billion miles (6 billion kilometres). Earth can be seen as a blueish-white speck approximately halfway down the brown band to the right (annotation added). The light band over Earth is an artifact of sunlight scattering in the camera's lens, resulting from the small angle between Earth and the Sun. Carl Sagan came up with the idea of turning the spacecraft around to take a composite image of the Solar System. Six years later, he reflected, "All of human history has happened on that tiny pixel, which is our only home. -- Surajt88 (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Support This image was selected as picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for April 22, 2010 and I am of the opinion that it shoud be a featured picture in commons as well. Surajt88 (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting science, but quality is not good enough for Commons. Yann (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. But at 6 billion kilometers away, quality similar to other FPs here cant be expected. Hope I am not sounding like a nutjob when I say that I nominated it for the reason that it is the most distant photograph taken of us and it has more beauty in its meaning than its content. Surajt88 (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Not only the quality is not good, but the size is way below FP requirements. It is certainly a VI. Please nominate it here. Yann (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks. will do. Surajt88 (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, below size requirements Tomer T (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I wanted to nominate this myself. You can't apply size requeriments on this one. It represent Earth as a thiny pixel in the vast universe. What resolution do you expect? --Lošmi (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• As you say, it's a vast universe... there are plenty of pixels available in the subject! :) --99of9 (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose Valued Images might be the right place to nominate it, but not FP. -- H005 21:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support This iconic photo is the most distant photograph ever taken of earth. The opposes miss the point entirely. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, this kind of picture is beyond the rules of the FP. The ones who vote against it can try to make a better one.... -Gzzz (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support per the FPC guideline- "Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken." --Jovian Eye _storm 22:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support this picture makes sense --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Utterly ridiculous. This is commons FP. Let's keep at least a bit of credibility. (per H005, Tomer T and Yann). W.S. 05:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know how this process could be considered credible if this image doesn't pass. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I think you are confusing this process with another process on en:. Contributors that are new to commons should read the whole guidelines text before nominating (or voting for that matter). EV is not important on commons FP, other criteria are. The most important, yet most elusive and hardest to describe ingredient of a commons FP is the WOW-factor. That is something that strikes you the moment you see the image, not something that registers after reading half a page of explanations (I'm exaggerating a little here, but still). And then there are of course resolution, technical quality, composition and others. W.S. 05:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
      • No need for the patronizing explanation - I've been floating around here about five times longer than you have. Perhaps Carl Sagan could explain why this image is so special, and has great WOW-factor. Technical arguments don't apply - even if someone decided to launch another probe today, it took voyager about 15 years to get out that far. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
        • My comment was general, Noodles, and not specifically aimed at you. And I'm sure your were not yet 'floating' around here in 1982 ;-). W.S. 07:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Huge encyclopaedic value. I don't think there will be another shot like this in the near future. It is as unique as it gets. In this case value simply surpasses mere quality. --Laveol (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Question Why not File:Pale Blue Dot.png? Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Wetenschatje --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above--Citron (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Support "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject." —Notyourbroom (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree and  Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 03:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Galandil (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Take away the explanations and nothing more separates this picture from noise. I agree that it has value, and that this picture should be highlighted, somehow, but definitely not as one of the best media common has to offer (IMO of course). Per WS for the fact en:FPC appears to be more appropriate place (or Valued Images on Commons) - Benh (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Benh and others. --–Makele-90 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose This image is interesting and a tour de force. It would be a thrill to see a terrestrial exoplanet image of this quality. But, I think it meets the VI criteria, not those of FPC. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)