Reason

Very large, very encyclopedic and high resolution

Proposed caption

Dione is a moon of Saturn discovered by Giovanni Cassini in 1684. It is named after the titan Dione of Greek mythology who (with Zeus) created Aphrodite. It is also designated Saturn IV.

Articles this image appears in

Dione (moon)

Creator

NASA

• Support as nominator Chris H 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Support--Mbz1 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
• Support. --Golbez 07:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yes, this is higher res and more detailed than the existing FP of Dione, but what does that tell me other than Dione is just another pockmarked moon (the existing FP already did that)? I prefer the existing FP image which also shows a corner of Saturn in the background, and which incidentally the user has not only replaced as the main picture in the article, but removed from the Dione article completely. And I know there's no rule against having two FPs of the same subject, but I really feel it is overkill to have two of a very minor astronomical object such as this. --jjron 08:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The current one has superior composition and shows an entire side of the object. This one is higher rez but lacks to context of Saturn (both an aesthetic and enc hit) and has part of the subject in darkness. Still a fine pic, and although this one is probably more straightforward, making it better suited for the infobox, the other one should be kept in the article.--HereToHelp 12:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I can't tell from this pic what I am looking at; it can be any of a very large number of moons. The existing FP has more enc value because you can at least tell it's a moon of Saturn. And I think the existing one is more artistic / cooler. The greater resolution of this one does not make up for that. Zakolantern 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support This may look like any other pockmarked moon, but it is the detail of those features that allows us to identify it, so I think this is just as encyclopedic a shot as the current one. Of course, it would be great to somehow have the best of both worlds (this one's size and detail and the other's composition), but that pic doesn't seem to exist. (to Jjron) The darkness on the left side provides the contrast that allows us to see the craters and other features in greater detail; if this was a "full moon" shot, Dione would appear much more washed out (as indeed the existing FP of Dione is, though it's not quite full). Matt Deres 01:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, were you addressing me or HereToHelp? I didn't say anything about the darkness. --jjron 09:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - High enc value, nice quality. - Alvesgaspar 18:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per jjron. The old FP has immeasurably better composition. Not to make this a soapbox for a different image, but how come such a common thing as a moon photo is unquestionably supported by users (I name no names) when it basically shows a pockmarked rock of which there is no doubt infinite number in the universe! --Fir0002 10:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Common thing? I see only a handful of Dione at the JPL site, of which this is probably the best in terms of level of detail shown. Now, if you really believe that every "pockmarked rock" is the same, why do we have a whole article dedicated to a List of geological features on Dione? Are you planning on AfD'ing it as being non-encyclopedic? Have you read the article for Dione? Despite being apparently identical to other pockmarked rocks, Dione (and Callisto) are notably and importantly different than the Moon and Mercury. Matt Deres 14:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to clarify that "by users (I name no names)" fir0002 ment me opposing yet another of his no value (in my opinion) rose image and supporting that one. Oh, well... --Mbz1 16:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
      • Damn hippy these pockmarked rocks are common throughout the universe, and I'm sure we could write a worthy article on every last one of them, as well as take a nicely detailed photo if we could get to them. To link the two arguments here together, if I write a nice article explicating the details of every variety of rose and upload a lovely accompanying photo, then people will be happy to support all those photos to become FPs? I mean after all, they are different varieties, each with their own special features! How about two photos of each one? --jjron 09:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hehe, exactly my point. Without disparaging Dione in any way, no doubt it's great rock as rocks go, what seperates it from [1] [2] [3] [4]? Perhaps I'm taking a too simplistic view but they all look the same to me. Even [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] et al bear the same "rock on a black background" resemblance. And then when you contemplate the number of these objects there must be in the universe, the novelty kinda wears off. But perhaps it's just because I'm not very geological, perhaps when other people look between these examples they see as much difference as when I compare a hoverfly to a bee. If so I apologize for saying it's common, but stand by my opinion that the other image is vastly superior and this one does not warrant a second FP IMO --Fir0002 12:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • To start with, my previous comment was perhaps just a teensy bit more sarcastic than I'd originally intended. Apologies to all. To answer Jjron's semi-hypothetical question, my answer would be, "Yes. If a subject is worthy of being an article, then I'd be happy to see an FP for it, even if we're talking about hundreds of moons or rose varieties, or whatever." The key thing, I think, is that it would be hard to write a reasonable article about more than a couple of dozen rose varieties (if that); beyond distinguishing characteristics, the developer, and perhaps some sales figures, there's not much there: it could be collected in a table. For the most part, natural satellites fall into the same kind of problem, it's just that Dione happens to one of the couple of dozen for which we can really write something meaningful. I'm not going to shed any tears if this pic doesn't get promoted, but I honestly believe that the subject is deserving of a picture which accurately captures its detail and that the photo that does that could be worthy of being an FP. Fact is, as breath-taking as the old FP is, it's not a terribly great picture of Dione itself. End rant! Matt Deres 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I will agree with you that this is a more detailed photo of Dione, as I said even in my original vote, and as far a photo just of Dione goes I also agree it is better than the existing FP. But the existing FP gives the moon a context that this lacks - the old 'composition' issue. Also, as I was trying to get at originally, although this shows the detail a bit bigger and more clearly it really tells me nothing more; to draw a loose analogy, it's like looking at a page of writing from 10m away instead of 20m away - I can see a bit more detail perhaps, but I still can't read it and find out what's really going on. And it's a struggle, at least for me, to understand how this one moon can deserve to have two FPs, when (according to Mbz1) there should be absolutely no FPs of roses at all. --jjron 08:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how could anyone possible argue that there should be no FP roses????? Chris H 18:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose due to copyright status. (Does ((Template:PD-USGov-NASA)) apply?) And it doesn't even have the FPC template! Does anyone look at the image pages anymore? It's also been poorly downsampled, per the jagged right edge. --Peter 23:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Peter. The right edge looks very bad. Cacophony 03:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]