Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/The Starry Night

The Starry Night
Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 18:56:04 (UTC)
 * Reason:Since February 8, the ultra-high-res version of The Starry Night from the Google Art Project has been in place at The Starry Night. I'm not an art guru, but the colors appear to me to be more accurate than the image we currently have featured here. The Google version is cropped closer, but does not appear to leave out anything of importance.
 * Articles this image appears in:The Starry Night
 * Previous nomination/s:Featured picture candidates/The Starry Night
 * Nominator:  Jujutacular  talk


 * Delist and replace &mdash;  Jujutacular  talk 18:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This raises an interesting question about the purpose of FPs and images on Wikipedia in general. How useful is a 96 MB image? To many of our readers, it's not. Their browsers will crash when they try to open it (the warning is too far down the page). People probably don't care to save such a large image to their computer, and it's not at all easy or convenient to locate a smaller version. I remember that Durova used to include a smaller "courtesy" version for users with slower connections, but I'm not sure that it was visible enough either. Obviously, we can't keep this image if it's not used in an article, but I'm not so sure we should replace it. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, File:Holbein-ambassadors.jpg has been superseded as well. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about impose an upper guideline for FPs at say 20 MB (unless really necessary)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs)
 * We already have quite a few that exceed 20 MB (e.g. File:Bolschewismus ohne Maske2.jpg).  Jujutacular  talk 17:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (i.e., no replace). I've been wondering when this would come up.  The Google Art Project is based on zooming--you start with a view of the galleries (which is good, because it reminds people where the paintings are located, which we should but often don't), and then can zoom in to extremely small details.  That's not the function of FPs, which are meant to be considered as entire images.  So I'm opposed to this. Chick Bowen 15:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Addendum: Since I am the only "Keep" vote, I will add delist without replacement as second option. Chick Bowen 01:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your thoughts, but nevertheless we have an issue to deal with: the existing FP is not used in the primary article. Perhaps we could reduce the size of the Google version, replace it in the article (and others), link the large version of the image, and mark the reduced resolution version as FP?  Jujutacular  talk 21:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to note that we have the FPlowres template available that could be used in this situation.  Jujutacular  talk 21:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a fuss about it, at the articles and at Commons.  It seems to me ridiculous to have the lead image in an article be one that effectively can't be opened in the browser. I think these images violate the principles of our image policy and are outside the project scope at Commons. But perhaps there's consensus for the opposite view; I don't know. Chick Bowen 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I agree. I'd like to see a discussion of this somewhere, at least. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FPlowres is nice but has the same problem: do casual readers know it exists? When something like this comes up on the Main Page, a lot of people are going to have their browsers crash. In principle, I think we should feature the best version of an image; I just have trouble coming to terms with a nearly 100 MB FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do still think the colors on the Google version are better. We could scale it down to around 40 MB so that the majority of users could still open it, while still getting a lot of the amazing details.  Jujutacular  talk 00:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. I guess we might as well just feature what's used in the article. My concern is less a FP concern than an overall Wikipedia concern. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist It's not used in the article, so it can't be an FP. I'm not sure about replacing yet, but if consensus heads that way, I won't mind. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist and replace I'm not particularly comfortable with a 100mb FP but I'd rather have this delisted and replaced than just be another victim of the delist by default because people can't make up on their minds on replacing the image like what happened with the Panorama of Edo delist. Cat-five - talk 02:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would uploading (if possible) and nomating the 3.4gig version be considered a WP:POINT violation? If Wikipedia survived it, that woud be an interesting way to start the discussion on ultra large images. Cat-five - talk 02:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Limit is 100 MB.  Jujutacular  talk 03:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delist and replace. The existing FP isn't used in the painting's article, and we should feature the best version we can handle. Large size is not really a problem IMO. Most people who click though will just look at the thumbnail on the image page, and not go any further. For those who want more detail, the image page has links to interactive image viewers and a download button with links to smaller sizes. We could upload a smaller version and tag it with FPlowres too. --Avenue (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist and replace anyone interested in a smaller file (for webuse or else) could download it on commons via the "download all sizes" menu. after all print solutions require the highest resolution and quality available. regards, Peter Weis (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * D&R, so long as lower resolution copies are provided. Cowtowner (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist, do not replace: The Google version has the edges cut off. 99% of a painting isn't enough. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can anyone confirm this? Makeemlighter (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a little complicated, because Van Gogh did not paint to the edge of the canvas, and the edge of the painted portion is not straight. You can see this very clearly in the currently featured version: at the top left he painted right to the edge, but in the middle left he left what looks like about half an inch of blank canvas. Google dealt with this by cropping it to where the paint ends in the middle, rather than the edge of the canvas.  I'm inclined to agree with Adam that Google's way doesn't give the most accurate perspective of what the actual canvas looks like. Chick Bowen 23:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * D&R This is a no-brainer for me, bigger is better. Also I thought we dealt with this before, we have warnings within the file description page and a link to a zoomify hosted on the tool server for the image in the warning for people to view in their browsers if they wish. Personally I think people don't just accedently click an image on the front page then click the larger preview image again too often by mistake so I don't think that should even be something to worry about. — raeky  t  20:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

— Mae din\ talk 06:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The consistent theme is that the current FP ought to be delisted. The replacement votes (of which there are five) don't address the issue of the cut-off painting, and two of those votes are "discounted" (one for timing and the other for its dependence on lower resolution copies (which haven't been provided yet as far as I know)).  I believe the subject is sufficiently thorny and involved that the promotion of the 100 MB version (or a lower resolution/smaller file size copy of it) should be decided in a new nomination and therefore given appropriate attention.   Mae din\ talk 06:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)