Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Land on the Moon 7 21 1969-repair.jpg

File:Land on the Moon 7 21 1969-repair.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 12:55:51

•  Info created by Jack Weir - uploaded by Rufus330Ci - repaired and nominated by carol. This is the year 30th anniversary of the first landing on the moon. I would like for this image (or even perhaps a nicer restoration of the original to be considered for POTD for July 21 this year, the 30th anniversary of the day after. -- carol (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support On the chance that there are people who are so old as to have been alive in 1969 who are involved on the internet and view the commons POTD, I suggest that there are very few images available here that will have the same impact and emotional "Wow" as this one. Heck, even the conspiracy people who think that the moon wasn't landed on should not have a problem with this image and also have the same set of memories of what was one of the coolest days shared by so many that year. -- carol (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - recognisable and considerable historical significance. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support and agree with POTD idea.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality. It's old picture and I understand that, but it isn't that historical. —kallerna™ 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, this is not a hysterical image -- but is that a reason to disqualify it for FP? -- carol (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Support --AngMoKio (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think this photo perfectly fits as a Valued Image candidate rather than a featured one. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• You might think so, but it fails at so much of the actual criteria to be a Valued Image. It is not the best in its category, for example. Familiar with all of the review mechanisms here, I nominated it here because there is no other photograph here at commons that provided this much WOW. I am also curious which photograph you would consider to be the best POTD for the day after the 30th anniversary of the first space walk? -- carol (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose - I agree with Tiago Fioreze -- Dcubillas (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Because it is so rare. --Muhammad 06:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I think we need to get away from promoting commons as just a place to find eye-candy (high quality eye-candy ;-). I regret that my comments (quite a while ago), that standards for FP images were not up to the standard of QIs has contibuted to an over emphasis on the technical merits of FP images rather than an emphasis on their content. What is the FP historic category for, if not for images like this! :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX^talk  09:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support For the POTD idea. --Estrilda (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is entirely unclear to me why the uploader thought he has the right to release a photo taken by his grandfather to public domain. So, the image can be non-free, actually. What is the best way address this concern? Should I nominate it for deletion and see what happens? Is there a better way? Thanks. -- Crapload (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite conceivably because he owns the rights, who do you think owns the rights to this image? --Tony Wills (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know who owns the rights. I would not ask the question if I knew. I do not want to guess. Where is proof that the grandchild owns the rights? He did not take the photograph, obviously. I am puzzled. Are there precedents or procedures for this kind of situation when one claims the rights on another's work? Crapload (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support - Per the nominator. I find absolutely ridiculous the arguments concerning the rights, given the circunstances. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why. Crapload (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is the appearance that you simply want the image to be deleted, I apologize for my lack of imagination to determine other reasons. You can change this by explaining who you consider to be the owner of the copyright of this image. -- carol (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I would like the image to stay, properly licensed beyond reasonable doubt. I already said above that I do not know who the owner of the copyright is. I already said that I do not want to guess. Don't you think if I wanted to delete the image, I would simply nominate it for deletion, instead of asking questions here? I know fully, that people raising copyright concerns are not popular here (save for blatant copyright violations). I also know, seeing several images with questionable status here, that Wikimedia Commons would be my last choice should I need images for my printed work, for instance. Precisely because issues like this one and the stance taken by the majority here. Please, do not misunderstand me. I like the project and I like the idea. The idea is brilliant. Still, I think use of Commons images outside outside of Wikipedia and personal blog is too much legal risk, generally speaking. I understand, there will always be people willing to take that risk. Now, this discussion here is so far fruitless in clarifying the copyright status in question, instead carol questions my motive, and no better alternative is offered, I will nominate the original and derivative for deletion and hope it will work out one way or another. You can see I was hesitant (and still am), but no better way has been offered. I wish there was a better way. Thank you. Crapload (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support — Also support the POTD idea --Goosta (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support even not sharp, I can supported. Document value.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This restoration is really good. Support POTD also. Regarding all excitement and disbelief that that event cause, I think this one fits the best ;) --Lošmi (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, --Tintero (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice historic document, perfectly retouched. --AM (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - wow. I can even read some of the small newsprint. Jonathunder (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

result: 17 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)