Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Messier 81

Messier 81
Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2010 at 13:43:51 (UTC)
 * Reason:Huge file, very detailed, clear EV (lead image in the article on the subject), very "stop, stare, click". Already a FP on Commons, caption nabbed from the article. As with any image of this size, Dschwen's image viewer will be useful.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Messier 81, M81 Group, bulge (astronomy), unbarred spiral galaxy
 * FP category for this image:Astronomy
 * Creator:NASA, ESA and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Galactic Support Can't go wrong with a 343 megapixel image from NASA. — raeky  T  15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Great picture, all the criteria there. Hekerui (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Per all the above reasoning. Greg L (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? Not so fast, I'm on Firefox and when I attempted to open, what must be the biggest online image I've ever seen according to its dimensions I just got an error message... Is that normal? I see it on the image viewer and the preview to the right, though. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  16:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt firefox can handle a 74.13 MB 343 megapixel image... as the reasoning says, use the flash image viewer or download it and view it in photoshop. — raeky  T  16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Conditional support I struck my “support” vote. Well, the full-size image file is obviously impractically too big. We’re doing few visitors a favor by showing a thumb in an article that—after going to the image’s file page and innocently clicking on the image (without reading or comprehending what the file size means)—results in a Service Pack-size download wait. I’m getting a bit busy right now for a week to do anything about this, but 74 MB is near what some of my Mac OS X upgrades weigh-in at (go make coffee during the download). There should never be surprises when someone clicks a link on Wikipedia; and such a gigantic, browser-breaking file is unusual and is therefore a surprise. We need to get some smaller derivatives of this, with links to them imbedded into the full-size file pages of this image on both en.Wikipedia version and the one on Commons. I suggest something weighing in at around 12–15 megapixels. A 15 MP image would measure 4,725 × 3,175. We can use that 15 MP on the Main Page. And that image file page can then provide a link to the big-ass one for those who want to wait and see if their browser breaks under the strain. We probably ought to do this for every article that uses this image. Greg L (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the prominent warning directly under the image sufficiently take care of that in your opinion, or the size description under the image? Hekerui (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Even if we were to provide a courtesy copy, it would be this file that we featured. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I don't agree we should do courtesy copies, we have the large image viewer on Commons they can click on and browse around it even on slow connections, but we do have the fancy new template made for just this circumstance, smaller courtesy files that are of a featured picture/video. But I only feel that using them on video is justified. Maybe modify the large image template on Commons to make the image browser MUCH more prominent and easier to see? — raeky  T  19:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We featured the smaller version!? J Milburn (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No no, the full res version is featured, but policy dictates low res version goes in the article for videos. Therefore we linked the full res version from the caption.  Jujutacular  talk 20:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and boldy made another version of the largeimage template commons:Template:LargeImage2, it stands out FAR more, and I put it in the image here for an example. — raeky  T  20:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I have no objection to a smaller version being used in the article, even on the main page, but I think we should be featuring the larger version. I don't think these technical issues should, in this case, stand in the way of the image being featured. J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A smaller version would be nice, since just clicking on image file is something we are all quite accustomed to. But I also find Raeky’s bolder template is a big help too. Greg L (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The big, bolder “viewer” template aviso Raeky added was a significant improvement. It still might be nice to have a smaller, 15 MP (4,725 × 3,175) version to fill up anyone’s browser window—no matter what its width—the way things are typically done (along with the ability to zoom around after using the magnifier button). Whatever seems prudent. Greg L (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All bold? Giant waste of space? Two images? Pushes the image description completely out of view? Sorry, but this is a typographic nightmare and a case of too much is too much. The regular large image template already sticks out by being the only red template on image description pages. This is restarting an arms-race for the users' attention, resulting in cluttered and confusing description pages. And now we have two templates for the same purpose. This is just inconsistent, and inconsistent is bad for the user. Commons description pages are already packed with "information". This does not help. It is a step in the wrong direction. I sincerely hope this gets thought over again. --Dschwen 21:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So you put it up for deletion without even mentioning this thread and why it was made. This should be brought up on Commons Village Pump. The issue is pretty big IMHO, that a IP user can EASILY miss the one line of text and pink square and click the image and crash their browser and/or computer. When that possiblity exists, bold in-your-face warnings need to exist. That combined with clear indication of the large-image-viewer as an alternative. — raeky  T  21:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to comment there, rather then complaining here. The motivation why it was created, namely to appease voters in a FPC discussion only makes matters worse in my opinion. --Dschwen 22:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

* Oppose Until either a Firefox-breaking land mine is fixed with reasonable-size alternative, or until Dschwen stops trying to delete an attention-getting aviso about the land mine. And I did comment there. Your concerns over “restarting an arms-race for the users' attention” are overblown. Our I.P. readership with some experience on Wikipedia (not the über experience you and I have) are accustomed to how things normally work. If they click that above image, they are sent to an image file page where their prior (but limited) experience gives them a certain expectation on what to do—and expect—next. And if these I.P. users just click on that image link after they get there—like they may have done a hundred times in the past—the idiotic file is so big, it will choke some people’s browsers—like User:IdLoveOne’s Firefox—into an epileptic comma. That’s just stupid. If we’re going to provide landmines to click on, either we should have a very easy to notice aviso there, or we should be providing smaller images. A 75 megabyte, Firefox-choking image file is bordering on the absurd. Your complaining about providing an attention-getting aviso about that is absurd. Greg L (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional support If a reasonable-sized version can be found, this will become full support. --Lucas Brown 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit: at the Commons page for this picture, I noticed that the original version of the image is only 3000x2016 pixels and 9.31 MB. If this becomes a FP, let's have the first thing users come to after clicking be the smaller image with a notice and link to the larger version.  --Lucas Brown 00:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment What adds EV to this picture is the fact it's so darn huge and you can drill down and see the tiny stars that makeup the big picture. I do not think we need to promote a smaller version. I'm mildly OK with uploading a smaller version and tagging it with FPlowres, strongly opposed to promoting anything but the full version and would highly prefer a more visible/better LargeImage template on Commons. Also I think any Opposes strictly because of the template fight on Commons should be stricken, it's not this image's fault people get overly bureaucratic. — raeky  T  00:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or that people get overly acerbic... Way to go Raeky! Thanks for making this discussion so unpleasant. --Dschwen 01:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, I do what I can. — raeky  T  01:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support On the assumption that the big-ass pink alert template stays there warning people to take care that they might boil their browsers trying to load-in a 75 MB image until that can be replaced with an idea Dschwen has for helping steer visitors clear of stepping on such a land mine. Greg L (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Greg L - please can you strike one of your two current Supports as it might get miss-counted... thanks... Gazhiley (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Greg L (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I implemented the idea. Please test here. --Dschwen 15:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the option is to download, that still needs to remain. — raeky  T  00:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It does remain, but it is moved into the warning template. Do you have another suggestion where to put it? --Dschwen 14:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I see it now, so I like, thumbs up for me. — raeky  T  00:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose It would be support if this were reasonable-sized. I don't see any reason to have a candidate this huge except just to show off, This is an interesting reverse of the topic we usually get around here about images not being big enough even when they meet size criteria. Maybe we should have a restriction on size. I'm betting almost everyone who sees this image before and after it gets featured won't even be able to look at it, worse than that it might even trigger bugs and crashes, and don't even get me started on Adobe. I'm not even sure an HDTV used as a monitor could carry this and I'm sure significantly less users have supercomputers. But since this probably will get featured then congratulations on presumably breaking the current biggest FP filesize in history record. -- I'ḏ  ♥  One  16:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you oppose because you just clicked without reading the warning and it crashed your browser. Boo hoo! You are ignoring the fact that we have a viewer for large images, so your bet isn't worth much. You are ignoring the fact that there is a reason for this high resolution and the nominator mentioned it. What does an HDTV have to do with anything? You are just assuming a lot of things, like the image is nominated just to break some imaginary "record". Or that a substantial amount of users cannot read or just mindlessly clicks around (although this might not be far from the truth). The discussion should be how can we make the experience of viewing large images as robust and safe as possible for our users. Sticking our heads in the sand and shunning high quality material is certainly not the right way to go. --Dschwen 16:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Hekerui (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the warning and tried anyway. My point remains that a picture file looses purpose the moment it can't be viewed and even moreso when we could be adding bugs and crashes to the problem and I include the flash viewer in that as well; At that point there's little discussion of quality. I ask you this as kindly as I can, Dschwen: Please be civil and just don't. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are a real piece of work. You just keep claiming it cannot be viewed. That is exactly what I meant by sticking your head in the sand. I am fully aware of the criticisms of flash. The point is for >90% of all users it just works. But as you might not have seen (or also purposefully ignore) there also is a non-flash version of the viewer. --Dschwen 19:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're opposing... Because the quality is too high? J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, J Milburn, you're better than that, you know that's not the problem or what I said. I don't think I can stop it being promoted anyway, so all my oppose really does is nag everyone caught in the gimmickiness of a super-huge image. And size ≠ quality. -- I'ḏ ♥  One  01:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, of course it doesn't, and yeah, I fully accept what I said wasn't the full picture- I was just trying to point out how weird what you are saying is. There's no point us playing word games, but you are, for all intents and purposes, asking for a lower quality image to feature. Does that not sound weird to you? It's certainly not anything to do with our criteria. If you want a smaller image, go ahead and upload one, but common sense dictates that this one is going to be the featured version, if any of them are (and FP sense dictates that one of them should be :P). J Milburn (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support That's a fine picture Hive001   contact  14:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. A lovely image. It's hard to have too much resolution for a galaxy like this. I expect there would be interesting detail even at 10 times this size.--Avenue (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, it has always seemed logical to me that a larger subject generally be expected to have a larger resolution. It's hard to imagine a bigger subject than a galaxy. Cowtowner (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Per above three, pretty long page. --Extra  9 9 9  (Contact me  +  contribs) 11:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)