In this article we will explore the impact of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Challenger explosion.jpg on different aspects of everyday life. From its influence on popular culture to its relevance in history, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Challenger explosion.jpg has left its mark in various areas. We will analyze how Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Challenger explosion.jpg has shaped the way we relate to the world around us, as well as its role in the evolution of society. Through a detailed analysis, we will seek to better understand the importance of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Challenger explosion.jpg and how it has marked a before and after in our perception of reality. This article aims to offer a broad and diverse view on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Challenger explosion.jpg, addressing different perspectives and possible implications for the future.
If you were born before 1982, this image needs no explanation. It is a high-quality (albeit a bit dark and a little fuzzy) picture taken shortly after the Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrated during lift-off. I couldn't believe this image wasn't listed at Category:Memorable photographs, or anywhere on Wikipedia or Commons, so I uploaded it from the ironically-named Great Images in NASA page.
Oppose - I know this image is important and was widely published. I can't support it even so. We are looking at people dying in this image. No matter how widely seen, it remains too private a moment for me too look at without feeling as if I am intruding in an umcomfortably lurid manner. --Deglr632817:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want me to do. Could you perhaps phrase your request in a more condescending and excessively simplistic manner? thanks.--Deglr632809:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It was taken with a motion picture camera. NASA used several motion picture cameras to image launches. The Public Affairs Officers then go in an grab the *best* frames. That other famous image of Challenger's launch with the birds in the foreground was taken the same way. 216.134.171.2006:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Opposte -- If we didn't know what was happening then the image wouldn't mean very much... This is probably true with some of the featured portraits but I don't think this image is very good... despite the importance of the event. grenグレン?08:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Support Grenavitar has a point about how by itself (no caption), the picture would not mean as much. Still I believe that the placement of the picture (next to the "No explosion" section of the article)improved the article significantly. It gave a visual to the explaination of the incident instead of leaving it up to the imagination.--Jonthecheet02:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I saw this happen live... on TV, sure... but NO caption is necessary. For the rest of my life I'll instantly know what that image is without being told. --Dante Alighieri | Talk18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I was born a bit less than a decade after the incident and initially thought it was some picture about fire or smoke. The caption, to me, brought more significance to the picture. I think it would be analogous to a caption for the image of Saddam Hussein's statue being pulled down in Baghdad; future generations will not understand why the statue is taken down, but the caption could understand why the statue is being taken down. I think that is the purpose of captions.--Jonthecheet04:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
