Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg

Image:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg - not featured

•  Info created by NASA - uploaded by White Cat - nominated by White Cat -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support 16,000 × 16,000 image of Helix Nebula. (286MB TIFF version) -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• {{FPX| it is [[:Image:NGC7293 (2004).jpg|already featured]]}} Lycaon 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That is 3,200 × 3,200 while this is 16,000 × 16,000. This image is better, not a duplicate. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 17:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I removed the notice. Can we just re-upload this image as a new version of Image:NGC7293 (2004).jpg ? or something? Bigger is better. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The two images are a bit different. Old one is rotated differently. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:NGC7293 (2004).jpg

•  Oppose it is already featured. Lycaon 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • They do not look identical to me. If anything the resolution is very different. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment it is not good practice to remove other people's comments or opposition, even when you remove an FPX template!! Lycaon 19:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, the template said "remove this template if you object"... so I did. If thats a problem, I suggest someone modify the template to read differently. Otherwise, I didn't remove anything else, hell I even left your sig. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Support The previously featured image has lower resolution. For astro images more resolution is very welcome. /Daniel78 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Although this version has much higher resolution, I find the already featured picture of this nebula much more spectacular. Linking the two pictures would be good. Chmehl 05:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • They can both be featured... :/ -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • We don't typically feature more than one image of the exact same subject (where exact same = same basic composition/content). An image must contain something of substantially different value for it to also be featured. For example, this and this are both featured picture caliber images, but since they show the exact same butterfly pose on the same kind of flower, they are not sufficiently different for them to both be featured. Contrast this with this and this featured picture of the same subject but with a totally different presentation. QIs can have multiples, but not FPs. -- Ram-Man 03:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose. I agree with that the current featured picture of the same basic subject just looks more spectacular. Resolution in this case is an insufficient reason. -- Ram-Man 03:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

3 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 22:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)