Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arecibo message.svg

Arecibo message
Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014  at 12:35:13 (UTC)


 * Reason:High EV
 * Articles in which this image appears:Extraterrestrial life, Fermi paradox, Arecibo Observatory, and Arecibo message
 * FP category for this image: Diagrams
 * Creator:Norro


 * Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "The actual binary transmission carried no color information." Oppose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - IMHO, colors are necessary to fully distinguish and understand various components of the message. Also, it is only a representation of the message, not the actual message, the actual message is in binary format ("zeros" and "ones"). -- Bkouhi (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The colors are pure OR, and misrepresentative of what was actually sent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I uploaded a new version, the colors that used in this new version are based on this reference, so it is not original research anymore, also, it is still in the public domain and it does not violate copyright laws, because the original image only consists of simple shapes. If the image still has a problem, please let me know. -- Bkouhi (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's still OR (although not ours) as there was no colour data. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you going to say that we can't have a graphical image of this text message? Please understand that we need to use colors if we want to have a graphical picture of this message. At least, we have to use black and white (I will create a black and white version, if it is not OR). The image is not intended to be an exact representation of the original message, it is just for making it easy for readers to easily understand different parts of the message, IMO. The original message is just a series of "1s" and "0s" (in binary) and does not make sense for most readers (so, I think we need a picture and therefore we have to use colors). -- Bkouhi (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would probably be easier to just wait and see what others think than try to please me. I may consider a B&W version as more accurate to what was sent, but consensus may lean in other ways. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment there is a monochrome version on Commons. I've added it for comparison. Personally, I think it's just as easy(!) to decode as the coloured version. 129.234.114.138 (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is OR. If someone had made up what the various parts of the diagram were, then that would be. As it stands the image just shows the separate parts of the image based on the original message (which is explained by many sources) and uses colour as a visual cue to indicate this (not to mention that the article uses segments of this image to explain the mesage). Similarly, the message wasn't sent on a grid (even a BW one) - it is just being displayed on one. And we don't call that OR. The Alt's colours are ugly and uninformative. 24.222.132.240 (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, very classic image. I've seen the color version before. Re the above: Why not add an explanation in the caption: "This is a visual interpretation of the digital signal, colors are added for clarity" - as simple as that. --Janke | Talk 06:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, on the Arecibo message page, this info is in the caption: "This is the message with color added to highlight its separate parts. The actual binary transmission carried no color information."--Janke | Talk 06:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no question about color being added, and no confusion about that... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Original with caption to indicate that colours were added. Black and white would be more accurate to what was sent, but the colour makes it much more understandable.  If we're forcing a faithful reproduction in the name of EV, we're making it harder to understand, not easier.  I'd also support having the colour and black and white versions as a set.  The Alt 1 is just less attractive to me (not a criterion, but if we're arbitrarily colouring it, we might as well keep it looking good). MChesterMC (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't mind the colour, but shouldn't there be a clear caption based on the colours? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Crisco: the colourisation (for want of a better term) destroys the EV here by presenting viewers with a fundamentally misleading image. Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Adding the color is not WP:OR, nor does it create a "fundamentally misleading image" - in fact it enhances the EV, as on the original image it is difficult for some to tell what parts of the image are part of which figure. Ideally both the color and B&W images would be FPs. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 12:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Only the original has enough supports. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)