Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Messier 82
- Reason
- Another fine picture of a galaxy. Clear EV, very eyecatching, great quality and size. Already featured on Commons, the German Wikipedia and the Turkish Wikipedia. Caption copied from article.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Messier 82, list of nearest galaxies, astrophysical X-ray source, space music
- FP category for this image
- Space/Astronomy
- Creator
- NASA/JPL-Caltech/STScI/CXC/UofA/ESA/AURA/JHU
- Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Question Anyone else see color banding on the blue areas? --I'ḏ♥One 15:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Any defects like that would be natural limitations on the most advanced space telescopes we currently have, keep in mind these are mega-zoomed in areas of the sky using multi-billion dollar pieces of equipment. You can't expect every one to be the same quality due to level of zoom and limitations in the hardware. Irregardless of small defects it is the most detailed image we have of this part of space and likely most detailed image we will have for decades or more. — raekyT 19:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- ...So that's a yes then? I added a different version I found on Commons, weak support either, because neither is perfect and FPC has spoiled me yet I suppose they're important. If you guys like big pics you'll love the other version. --I'ḏ♥One 20:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. I don't think we should be in the business of telling people they chose the wrong image in their article, so I have requested outside input to this FPC in a couple of places. Hopefully we can get an explanation of why the smaller image was favoured, if there is a solid reason. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- They're both very large images within the same order of magnitude of each other, so the size isn't a major factor. The favoring probably has more to do with the coloring than anything else. However, personally, I would lean slightly to the sharper image, though less colorful because of the clearer details. —CodeHydro 22:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. I don't think we should be in the business of telling people they chose the wrong image in their article, so I have requested outside input to this FPC in a couple of places. Hopefully we can get an explanation of why the smaller image was favoured, if there is a solid reason. J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- ...So that's a yes then? I added a different version I found on Commons, weak support either, because neither is perfect and FPC has spoiled me yet I suppose they're important. If you guys like big pics you'll love the other version. --I'ḏ♥One 20:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Any defects like that would be natural limitations on the most advanced space telescopes we currently have, keep in mind these are mega-zoomed in areas of the sky using multi-billion dollar pieces of equipment. You can't expect every one to be the same quality due to level of zoom and limitations in the hardware. Irregardless of small defects it is the most detailed image we have of this part of space and likely most detailed image we will have for decades or more. — raekyT 19:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support I'm a sucker for great space images. ;-) — raekyT 13:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 14:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Greg L (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Like Raeky, I'm a sucker for space images. As to which one, though... tough choice. Original's prettier, but #2s's sharper and shows more structure... I'd have to support #2 over #1. --Lucas Brown 22:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- The alt is partly by ESA, ESA doesn't allow commercial use of their images, thus not compatable here, we sure that this doesn't affect this image's license? Not every image on NASA's site is public domain... Also the top image is a composite of Chandra, HST and Spitzer while the bottom is I think just visible light with some IR. — raekyT 00:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not according to {{PD-Hubble}} which is used on the image, besides which it's 4 years old, they don't seem to mind and this isn't commercial use anyway, no one's making money off the image. --I'ḏ♥One 00:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thats not the point though, theres PLENTY of images out of our millions that slip through the cracks, and yes people are making money off of our images, we want them too and they do. Theres lots of commercial adaptations of our encyclopedias. The second link on that template says it has to be released under a CC license, not public domain... So something doesn't add up there. ESA images are not public domain, most require a non-commercial CC license, seems it's a compromise ESA is making here with NASA to use a less restrictive CC license. I'm not entirely convinced the NASA/ESA collaborative images are entirely freely licensed. But if no one else has an issue with the license... Be sure to take these images into account in what they're showing they're not identical, since they're composed of different wavelengths of energy, the above has a lot of x-ray where the bottom has no x-ray. — raekyT 00:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- ESA's name is on this somehow, but this was taken by the Hubble telescope, meaning NASA took it, they provide credits, as did the uploader on Commons, and it doesn't specify copyright ownership on the Hubble page, it also says specifically that satellite imagery is free for everyone to use on a Hubble+ESA website (scroll down); If anything I'm guessing ESA might've commissioned it, but that wouldn't be the same as transferring rights. So some guy takes this image and sells it, it's our responsibility? Did we tell him or anybody they could do that? --I'ḏ♥One 01:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that like say I own a camera, you want to use it, you pay me to use it, who owns the copyright? If ESA commissioned/paid for time to use the Hubble, even though Hubble is owned by the US Government and NASA, ESA would hold the copyright under that scenario. So if anything I think the template is wrong claiming it's public domain, and should be released under the CC license ESA's site says... This isn't a "so what" case, we unfortunately have to delete tons of ESA and other space agencies pictures all the time, like Japan's. Since it looks like this ESA/Hubble group is releasing the images under a compatible license we don't have to delete it, I just want to make sure we have it under the RIGHT license and are not labeling something public domain when it isn't. And yes, if we label an image public domain and it's not, we could potentially be responsible if someone else uses the image commercially. Many people bulk use our database and data without individually checking all of the thousands of images. It's OUR responsibility to make sure we have images that can legally be used commercially and that they're attributed right and under the right license. — raekyT 01:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's pretty clear on the source website's copyright page that the image is in the public domain, as it is not clearly listed otherwise. I would guess that if it wasn't, it wouldn't even be stuck on the website to download at horrendously large resolution. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- But at http://www.spacetelescope.org they say it's released under a CC license, which is correct? Is ESA the copyright holder or NASA? If ESA contracted/paid to use the telescope then they should be the copyright holder right? — raekyT 12:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's possible that they merely request the images, then NASA makes them. I think a quick email to ASA would be the best option here. J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Either way, it would seem that the image is free, but we certainly need to ensure we have the correct licensing. Another possibility is that all images are CC, while those affiliated with NASA are automatically put in the public domain. I'm still leaning towards this being PD, but I can't provide any real evidence. I think we're going to need to either contact someone or open a discussion somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that they're most likely freely licensed for our use here, and I too think we should have the license correct, thats why I brought it up. ;-) — raekyT 13:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Either way, it would seem that the image is free, but we certainly need to ensure we have the correct licensing. Another possibility is that all images are CC, while those affiliated with NASA are automatically put in the public domain. I'm still leaning towards this being PD, but I can't provide any real evidence. I think we're going to need to either contact someone or open a discussion somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's possible that they merely request the images, then NASA makes them. I think a quick email to ASA would be the best option here. J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- But at http://www.spacetelescope.org they say it's released under a CC license, which is correct? Is ESA the copyright holder or NASA? If ESA contracted/paid to use the telescope then they should be the copyright holder right? — raekyT 12:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's pretty clear on the source website's copyright page that the image is in the public domain, as it is not clearly listed otherwise. I would guess that if it wasn't, it wouldn't even be stuck on the website to download at horrendously large resolution. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that like say I own a camera, you want to use it, you pay me to use it, who owns the copyright? If ESA commissioned/paid for time to use the Hubble, even though Hubble is owned by the US Government and NASA, ESA would hold the copyright under that scenario. So if anything I think the template is wrong claiming it's public domain, and should be released under the CC license ESA's site says... This isn't a "so what" case, we unfortunately have to delete tons of ESA and other space agencies pictures all the time, like Japan's. Since it looks like this ESA/Hubble group is releasing the images under a compatible license we don't have to delete it, I just want to make sure we have it under the RIGHT license and are not labeling something public domain when it isn't. And yes, if we label an image public domain and it's not, we could potentially be responsible if someone else uses the image commercially. Many people bulk use our database and data without individually checking all of the thousands of images. It's OUR responsibility to make sure we have images that can legally be used commercially and that they're attributed right and under the right license. — raekyT 01:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- ESA's name is on this somehow, but this was taken by the Hubble telescope, meaning NASA took it, they provide credits, as did the uploader on Commons, and it doesn't specify copyright ownership on the Hubble page, it also says specifically that satellite imagery is free for everyone to use on a Hubble+ESA website (scroll down); If anything I'm guessing ESA might've commissioned it, but that wouldn't be the same as transferring rights. So some guy takes this image and sells it, it's our responsibility? Did we tell him or anybody they could do that? --I'ḏ♥One 01:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thats not the point though, theres PLENTY of images out of our millions that slip through the cracks, and yes people are making money off of our images, we want them too and they do. Theres lots of commercial adaptations of our encyclopedias. The second link on that template says it has to be released under a CC license, not public domain... So something doesn't add up there. ESA images are not public domain, most require a non-commercial CC license, seems it's a compromise ESA is making here with NASA to use a less restrictive CC license. I'm not entirely convinced the NASA/ESA collaborative images are entirely freely licensed. But if no one else has an issue with the license... Be sure to take these images into account in what they're showing they're not identical, since they're composed of different wavelengths of energy, the above has a lot of x-ray where the bottom has no x-ray. — raekyT 00:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not according to {{PD-Hubble}} which is used on the image, besides which it's 4 years old, they don't seem to mind and this isn't commercial use anyway, no one's making money off the image. --I'ḏ♥One 00:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- The alt is partly by ESA, ESA doesn't allow commercial use of their images, thus not compatable here, we sure that this doesn't affect this image's license? Not every image on NASA's site is public domain... Also the top image is a composite of Chandra, HST and Spitzer while the bottom is I think just visible light with some IR. — raekyT 00:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support Image 2 if free Hive001 contact 17:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Images 1 and 2 do not show the same thing. Image 2 is a composite of images taken with HST through filters in the visible light range, shows ordinary stars in the blue disk and, hm, gas emission in the red filaments, and is fairly close to what we could see with our eyes. Image 1 is a composite of images taken with HST in the visible, Spitzer in the infrared (showing dust emission) and Chandra in X-rays (showing in that case mostly synchrotron emission from fast electrons). The X-ray emission is from the blue parts which show the banding - X-ray astronomy is photon starved, which means that only comparatively few colour levels can be reconstructed). The information content in the two images is different and they cannot be directly compared. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that's why the first image was used in the article lead, then. If the two images show different things, perhaps it would be best if the second image was withdrawn from this nomination and renominated if it finds a use in its own right. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wrongfilter makes some good points. It's the same subject, presumably they were taken not long between each other considering they were released on the same date. The alternate is more realistic, larger and has better digital quality than the current lead image; It should actually be moved to the infobox of the article and the current one should be moved to the "structure" section since that's really the only usage for taking a photo of something like this in X-ray, with an explanatory caption for the false-coloring - which are pretty, but flawed and, again, unrealistic and artificial. I'm betting the alternate as far as the article, like with this nomination, was simply overlooked. The article has been edited less than 50 times in 2 years, and you can't assume the article was created or is monitored by some high-ranking expert in astronomy, just ordinary people with a hobby in astronomy. --I'ḏ♥One 07:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you feel the second would make a stronger lead, switch it. It is outside of FPC's remit to decide that one image is more appropriate than another and then come storming into an article to switch it. It would be up to you to make the switch/discuss the switch in the appropriate venue. J Milburn (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well ok, I did and tried to give them both their due EV and largely reworded WrongFilter's description to hopefully be a bit easier to grasp. --I'ḏ♥One 15:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you feel the second would make a stronger lead, switch it. It is outside of FPC's remit to decide that one image is more appropriate than another and then come storming into an article to switch it. It would be up to you to make the switch/discuss the switch in the appropriate venue. J Milburn (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wrongfilter makes some good points. It's the same subject, presumably they were taken not long between each other considering they were released on the same date. The alternate is more realistic, larger and has better digital quality than the current lead image; It should actually be moved to the infobox of the article and the current one should be moved to the "structure" section since that's really the only usage for taking a photo of something like this in X-ray, with an explanatory caption for the false-coloring - which are pretty, but flawed and, again, unrealistic and artificial. I'm betting the alternate as far as the article, like with this nomination, was simply overlooked. The article has been edited less than 50 times in 2 years, and you can't assume the article was created or is monitored by some high-ranking expert in astronomy, just ordinary people with a hobby in astronomy. --I'ḏ♥One 07:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I tried to get that info out above but apparently not as well as Wrongfilter. The second image is great in it's own right, but it's not the same thing as the first. Might be the same subject but without the IR and X-ray data it's not the same image. — raekyT 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that's why the first image was used in the article lead, then. If the two images show different things, perhaps it would be best if the second image was withdrawn from this nomination and renominated if it finds a use in its own right. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support original Astonishing image. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 02:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Voters: please state a preference for image 1 or 2. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- This has ended up a rather horrific nom because of the fact we've ended up with alts showing two different things. I suppose I prefer the alt, as that has ended up the lead image, but I do not feel we should now go and replace all the other usages. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Orig I agree. Adding other versions or entirely different pictures is a prescription for confusion and getting nothing done around here. When I saw an entirely different picture slapped up here (rather than in an entirely different nomination), it was clear this nomination was at great risk for becoming a thorough cluster-pooch. My vote was for the original. Greg L (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Leaning toward the alt, because it shows what the galaxy actually looks like. The infrared and X-ray are scientifically useful and make it look nicer, but they're not really real, the blue and other colors are just there to aid our human eyes and brains in seeing what the telescopes could see, plus it's FPC tradition to favor larger and sharper stuff. --I'ḏ♥One 16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- These pictures show different things- trying to choose between them is a little odd. The fact the circumstances of the article changed mid-nomination also complicates things. I'm close to saying bugger this nomination, we can let one or both have their own nominations... Am I still able to withdraw? Perhaps that would be the least ambiguous option... J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suppose I advise this is closed as "no consensus- clusterfuck" and someone can nominate one or both again in a month... Let this stand as a lesson as to why we don't nominate two different pictures in the same fricking nomination. J Milburn (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- These pictures show different things- trying to choose between them is a little odd. The fact the circumstances of the article changed mid-nomination also complicates things. I'm close to saying bugger this nomination, we can let one or both have their own nominations... Am I still able to withdraw? Perhaps that would be the least ambiguous option... J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Leaning toward the alt, because it shows what the galaxy actually looks like. The infrared and X-ray are scientifically useful and make it look nicer, but they're not really real, the blue and other colors are just there to aid our human eyes and brains in seeing what the telescopes could see, plus it's FPC tradition to favor larger and sharper stuff. --I'ḏ♥One 16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Orig I agree. Adding other versions or entirely different pictures is a prescription for confusion and getting nothing done around here. When I saw an entirely different picture slapped up here (rather than in an entirely different nomination), it was clear this nomination was at great risk for becoming a thorough cluster-pooch. My vote was for the original. Greg L (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Here are the numbers so far while you decide if anything should be promoted or not or just withdraw:
::7.5:: (hover) supports including :1: support specifically for the alt, 0 opposes, :6: statements or votes preferring the alt including :1: user who didn't do a boldface vote, :1: preference for the original. --I'ḏ♥One 05:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC) - Suggestion Since they are "different" can we just promote both of them and be done with this nomination? We can call one "M86 in true color" and the other "M86 in X-ray and infrared". --I'ḏ♥One 22:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, in the long run, I'd imagine that's what will happen, but it doesn't seem that it is the result of this nomination. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why not promote both as a set like in, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mandelbrot set 2? This nomination is almost one month old. Spongie555 (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's a nice idea, but, because of the confusion of the nomination, it could hardly be said to be the conclusion we have reached. Again, I think this should be closed with neither promoted, and they can be nominated again later. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think since both have support votes and no opposes i think promoting them as a set would work. But it looks like the first image has more votes then the alt. Spongie555 (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- However, the way the first image is used has changed since most of those votes were made. J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I just wanted to tell you guys that the first image just was promoted to valued picture. I just wanted to say since this is being nominated for FP and if it makes it to FP then it cancels out the VP. Spongie555 (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- However, the way the first image is used has changed since most of those votes were made. J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think since both have support votes and no opposes i think promoting them as a set would work. But it looks like the first image has more votes then the alt. Spongie555 (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's a nice idea, but, because of the confusion of the nomination, it could hardly be said to be the conclusion we have reached. Again, I think this should be closed with neither promoted, and they can be nominated again later. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why not promote both as a set like in, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mandelbrot set 2? This nomination is almost one month old. Spongie555 (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, in the long run, I'd imagine that's what will happen, but it doesn't seem that it is the result of this nomination. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Although at least one of these could probably be promoted, the result of this nomination is entirely unclear. Since the original nominator, J Milburn, has said a few times that this should just be closed without promoting anything, that's what I'm doing. One or both of these images can be re-nominated at any time, even immediately if someone wants to. Please make a separate nomination for each image, though, since this all came about due to another image being added. This could also be nominated as a set, if desired. This nomination was never presented as a set, so it didn't make sense to promote it as one. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)