I'm nominating this image because it adds significantly to the CPU article I'm currently rewriting from scratch. It wonderfully illustrates the construction of the type of typical discrete component transistor computer that was common during the late 60s and early 70s before the advent of the Integrated circuit.

The quality of the image isn't pristeen, but it's pretty good overall and is phenominal in comparison to most other photographs of minicomputer internals. I think both the rarity of this kind of image in this high quality, and its significance to the CPU article are very strong arguments for its nomination.

The photo was taken by Robert Krten for his online PDP-8 computer museum and was released to public domain upon my request.

• Nominate and support. -- uberpenguin 19:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Love the picture. Is it possible to put in a scale, though? I'm assuming the idea is that these components are monstrous compared to today's standards, but without a point of reference (perhaps a |----1"----| or other appropriate number in the lower right after some research is done to confirm it), this idea is lost. CapeCodEph 21:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fans do give SOME sense of proportion, but you have a definite point... It would be really cool if I could convince the original author to take a picture of one of the flip-chip modules next to a modern microprocessor die for proportion (I'll get on that). Each of the flip chip modules (the cards that plug into the backplane that you are seeing) are 2.5×5.0" (6.4×12.7 cm). I dunno how I feel about adding a scale to the image; I think it's a less effective way of making the point. I appreciate any more input on this matter! -- uberpenguin 23:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it in a 19" rack? If so, the scale is built in. Fg2 11:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I really love historical images of scientific and technological devices but have unfortunately found [1] that unless the image is of truly exceptional quality and composition, most people just don't really care. I think here, focus and lighting will be issues.--Deglr6328 00:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was kinda worried this might be the case, but with images like this you have to take them as they come... Anyway, I figured it's worth giving the image a shot. -- uberpenguin 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• support Richardkselby 00:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The picture quality is average, but the subject is fascinating. Enochlau 00:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. YUCK. I can appreciate the subject matter, but its so ugly to look at. I can't see this as a FP. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my comment below. BlankVerse ∅ 12:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice core.
• Oppose. Not striking, very boring picture. Old computer parts? Cmon, at least provide a contrast. JediMaster16 10:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Sure, old computer parts. Perhaps the subect matter isn't interesting to you, but the image is historical and plenty of folks have an interest in the history of computing. You wouldn't reject a rare picture of some interesting historical building or antique auto on the grounds that they are 'old,' would you? -- uberpenguin 12:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Touché. However, the photo just isn't striking enough for Featured Pics. JediMaster16 07:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Important subject that is used well in the CPU article. BlankVerse ∅ 05:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Interesting subject, but the picture is ugly --Chozan 18:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not the picture that's ugly, it's the PDP-8 CPU that's ugly, which is a very important distinction. The picture gives a very good idea of what they looked like—they were cramped, cluttered and butt-ugly. Featured Pictures can't just be pretty sunsets and nice macro shot of flowers. I think that it is an important subject and an interesting picture, and that's it's worthy of FP consideration. BlankVerse ∅ 12:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see what you're saying, and I can appreciate what it does for the article, but that still does not make it FP worthy. It not only has to illustrate the subject matter it's talking about, but it should do so while "being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." This picture actually makes me NOT want to read the article. If I had to read an article based on seeing a picture, this would be far from the top of my list. That's how I judge FP's. I don't mean to say its a bad picture, I just don't think its striking in any way, shape, or form. I do think there are examples of FP's that aren't the pretty sunset type pictures, I don't think there are any as ugly as this though. Just look at my voting record...I'm very picky. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Things can be strikingly ugly as well as strikingly beautiful. A VLSI microprocessor die can be exceedingly ugly if you know what to look for, or exceedingly pretty if you just happen to like things that cause optical dispersion and interference. Frankly, pictures of old tube and relay computers are pretty dang ugly looking too, but that doesn't change history, nor does it (in my opinion) detract from the picture's value to the relevant article(s). -- uberpenguin 14:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I will support because, well, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't :) but I'd really like to see some explanation in the image description of what is what here. Without a more descriptive explanation I can't tell where each of the parts are in the image.--Deglr6328 00:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, but I think the different colors identify the different components of the CPU. BlankVerse ∅ 12:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the marked version... I was contemplating using this one, but I think the labels are kinda distracting. -- uberpenguin 00:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Looks bland and the computer doesn't look too nice either. --Bash 22:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No offense, and not meaning to sound like a broken record, but one of the requirements for featured picture is not 'is it pretty.' I'll echo BlankVerse's above sentiment that featured pictures should be more than super macro shots of flowers and pretty landscape photos. Those are nice, but come on, break out of the cliche photo box a bit... Your opinion is your own, but I think it's utterly silly to reject a picture because the subject isn't something really sleek or strange looking. -- uberpenguin 13:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not against pictures that aren't pretty landscapes; Image:Mouse-mechanism-cutaway.png is featured because it looks nice and is informative, and the computer mouse isn't considered to be the most exciting thing out there. This picture may seek to inform, but is not striking. --Bash 03:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 08:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]