Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Aldrin Apollo 11.jpg

File:Aldrin Apollo 11.jpg (delist and replace), not delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2019 at 10:46:33

•  Source file: Astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the moon (original uncropped)

•  Info This image (left) was promoted on 28 May 2005 (Original nomination). We now have a better version (center, replacement) at File:Aldrin Apollo 11 original.jpg. The current featured version may have been modified to add black space above/behind Aldrin. The original unmodified and uncropped version (right) can be found at File:AS11-40-5903 - Buzz Aldrin by Neil Armstrong (full frame).jpg (actual photograph as exposed on the moon by Armstrong). The file description at original exposure also states that A communications antenna mounted on top of the backpack is also cut off in this picture. So the current featured photo is actually an inaccurate depiction of this historic photo. This is my first time participating in a discussion at Commons. So I apologize if created this nom incorrectly.
•  Delist and replace -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment The quality is better, the lack of space at the top is an issue. This should be fixed before. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

+1--Peulle (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding empty space would make the photo false. Part of Aldrin's backpack is cut off in the original photo Armstrong took. If that is still more desirable, I can make that happen.Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

See File:Aldrin near Module leg.jpg. I have added notes to the current featured picture that shows the issue more clearly.Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the backpack is slightly cut, but the issue remains. See also File:Aldrin Apollo 11 (jha).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

This is how his backpack is supposed to look. See the significant missing piece.Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Info Please keep the nom clean of displayed photos other than the current FP and the proposed replacement. --Cart (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Delist and replace – Lucas 13:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Delist because of – let's call it what it is – digital fakery of a historic image (minor and done in good faith, but nevertheless). As for a replacement, I think I'd prefer File:AS11-40-5903 - Buzz Aldrin by Neil Armstrong (full frame).jpg or something similar that retains the unexposed parts of the film around the image and even the vertical stripes at the left and right. --El Grafo (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Delist per El Grafo. Using the full frame addresses the compositional problems of the cut-off version pretty well, in addition to being the historical photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If my opinion matters at all, I have zero objections to this idea. Thanks. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Delist per El Grafo. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Do not replace by the one which seems cut. Agree with Yann and El Grafo. Just Delist or Delist-and-replace by the original -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Do not replace, feature both See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Apollo 11 Photograph of Buzz Aldrin where I argued strongly that Wiki should feature the Nasa "enhanced" version and others agreed. In the mean time, it seems someone has replaced the Nasa publicity photo on articles with the "original" version. I don't know how long ago that was done, or if there was any discussion about it. Both are useful on Commons. The publicity photo is the one everyone knows, and everyone here on Commons knows that painting in a little more blue sky (or black sky here) is a harmless alteration commonly done. The "original" photo is a mistake, and I continue to think only really worth using in an article on moon conspiracies. I don't see we can't feature both. -- Colin (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Neutral per Colin. I think he has a point, but I'd like to read what everyone else thinks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Do not replace, feature both Thought about this one for a while but I am overall persuaded by Colin's rationale. Cmao20 (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would argue the current FP, as a conspicuously doctored and edited version, perpetuates the conspiracy theories. "Here is the evidence," they will say, "a digitally manipulated version created by NASA." That is the crux of their ridiculous arguments: that NASA somehow created these videos and photos. And we are helping them. Putting one of the originals (especially the original film exposure) as the Featured Picture would end this argument. @Colin: the only issue I see with the version I am advocating is aesthetic and composition. We are sacrificing historical accuracy for sake of Commons quality standards on composition. The current FP is simply a false representation of the historical event. It misrepresents the appearance of Aldrin's backpack. I may be new here but I have been involved in a major overhaul of all Wikipedia articles about Apollo Program for over a year now.Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think Commons or Wikipedia have any power to end conspiracy theories, and Commons mission is just to be a high quality repository -- what people use the images for is not our concern. Many famous photographs are edited, or adjusted when making a print. If we consider this purely on composition then the second photo should not be promoted -- it is awful. If we consider it as a faithful photo of the first moon landing, then it is valuable and has high EV. But I argue the publicity photo also has high EV. If the Apollo photograph was altered by a Commoner or not itself famous, then it would have very doubtful EV. -- Colin (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• I have avoided CANCASSING but a simple post at en:Talk:Apollo 11 alert them to this would demonstrate that consensus there has changed significantly on this issue.Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think the FP process of any project should interfere much with what editors do on articles, beyond alerting those editors to the existence of alternatives to consider or point at a discussion. The en:wp FP discussion is probably more relevant to wp article editors. What our consensus is here, is really not important to that WP uses. -- Colin (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Delist per El Grafo and Ikan. We should not promote such altered historical documentations. These guys were astronauts, not photographers, and that is allowed to show in their photos. --Cart (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
•  Delist Per the comments above. Astronauts are usually not professional photographers. --BoothSift 01:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• If that's a thing,  do not replace, feature both per comments above. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 06:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Info This is the messiest and most inconclusive request I've seen so far. For another try to make something of this, please keep to simple "Delist" for the old FP or "Feature" for a new FP. --Cart (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Result: 2 delist and replace, 5 delist, 3 do not replace - feature both, 1 do not replace, 0 keep, 1 neutral => inconclusive voting => kept.