Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Titanic Wreckage 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Titanic Wreckage (2nd nomination)[edit]

I am renominating this image per the request of Ahadland as the original nomination (at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Titanic Wreckage) did not receive very much attention. In terms of technical quality, the picture is not as good as many other candidates. However, as the subject is unique and lies at a depth of 3.8 kilometers below the ocean surface, getting a better photograph may be difficult. The image appears in the article RMS Titanic.

  • Nominate and neutral support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- Historically significant, and the resolution isn't really a problem... It's just a really ugly picture. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 14:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose Not a very good image. — Arjun 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Yes it is historically significant but a more interesting and better picture can be found.--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - In both this nomination and the previous, people are saying "there must be better pictures out there". I'm not sure how much I believe that - there have only been a handful of expeditions and how many produced public domain images? "Ugliness" is a non-criteria for denying FP status in this case: shipwrecks are ugly. Previous complaints about darkness are silly too: The subject is reasonably visible and this is at the bottom of the ocean, greater lighting would make it look like a museum piece. This is a non-grainy, well focused, stylishly lit, medium resolution photograph of a very historic subject, and has nice visual interest. —Dgiest c 16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Striking image, and satisfactory in terms of technical quality. While it'd be nice if they raised the Titanic to allow for other freely-licensed images to be taken, this seems somewhat unlikely – so the photograph gets additional kudos for being rare and historically significant. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose despite the documental value and because I don't hear any bells ringing. Ugliness is a perfectly legitimate evaluation criterium, together with all the other subjective ones (including beauty and enc value). If the evaluation process were objective, we could all go home. Alvesgaspar 18:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great enc very rare shot --frothT C 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Barely meets the resolution requirements. Even if it passes, it will probably be delisted in a year or so as the requirements are growing stricter.--HereToHelp 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not promoting an image because it might be delisted in the future is a poor rationale. Debivort 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • support nicely shows what happens to iron ships as they decay underwater. As for "ugliness" ... ugly can be aesthetic - think The Scream. Debivort 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
erm...I think the Scream is beautiful. But that is just my "two-cents" :D — Arjun 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very iconic image, plus big historical value. It's not like anyone can just go and and take another shot.-Andrew c 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think you are missing the point, just because it would be hard to take the shot...that alone does not qualify to be a FP. I quote from WP:WIAFP,"Be Wikipedia's best work". To me this is not wikipedia's best work. — Arjun 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're missing the meaning of "best work". It's not just the best photography.. WP is an encyclopedia and enc is the most important element of "best work". --frothT C 03:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously "best" is subjective. Oftentimes the "best" photography found in magazines is blurry, cropped dynamically, shallow depth of field, over saturated and many other things that voters here would vote 'no' on pricipal alone. To me, personally, this image is very iconic, and very historical. I've seen it many times before and is almost the quintessential image of the Titanic. While it may not be the 'best' possible photo, it meets my reading of the FPC criteria. And my reading says that you weight uniquiness against other criteria. If 'best' was the only criteria, I would never vote for the Washington Monument because I personally find that structure drab, and therefore any photo of it would be boring in my opinion.--Andrew c 17:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per froth. SD31415 · SIGN HERE 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Historically significant, not really imbued with any major technical flaws, and i think it is encyclopedic; and given that we're maintaining an encyclopedia, i think its worth being listed as a Featured Picture —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs).
  • Restating my comment from last time I don't know how notable this photo would be if people didn't regognize the shape and style of the railing from the 1997 movie (e.g. featuring the scene "I'm the king of the world!"). This part of the ship would (in my estimation) not have any particular significance to us today if it had not been featured so prominently in the film, and in the marketing for the film, including the movie poster and the Celine Dion music video. Spebudmak 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you arguing therefore that the image is historically insignificant and not worth featured picture status? Well, given that the American 1 cent coin is well known to pretty much every person in America, does that stop it from being featured. Just because something is recognized across the world, doesnt mean it shouldnt be featured. And given that your issue is about the bow being immortalised in the film; lets say the film was never made, im sure many would agree that the image is still significant from a historical point of view
  • I'm not saying it's insignificant, just that its significance is affected by the inclusion in the film. It would still have some significance even if the film had not been made, but perhaps not as much. I'm just raising the issue, not voting pro or con.Spebudmak 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if the Titanic had been a tugboat, this image wouldn't be notable enough either. But it wasn't a tugboat, and it was featured in the film. Hypotheticals don't help one bit in determining whether an image is feature-worthy. It is what it is. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: good picture with historical relevance82.6.84.37 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No anonymous votes, please - Alvesgaspar 12:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above has one edit...this edit. — Arjun 03:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's not a great picture, and it's not hist either. Enc is what this picture has that others don't, as well as rarity. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 13:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Dgies. JorcogaYell! 13:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If anybody ever finds a better image, then we can delist this one. NauticaShades 11:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Titanic-bow seen from MIR I submersible.jpeg Raven4x4x 07:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Titanic_Wreckage_2&oldid=1138152060"