Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:ESO - The Carina Nebula (by).jpg

File:ESO - The Carina Nebula (by).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2010 at 02:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:ESO - The Carina Nebula (by).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:ESO - The Carina Nebula (by).jpg

•  Info created by the ESO - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Please don't oppose because it's a space picture, we haven't have a space FP for a while. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Oooh... The colours... Ter890 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support - good pic. Can someone add the very large pic download caution / thingy viewer tag? (I can't find the tag) - MPF (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Please don't, it is not "very large". --Dschwen (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Is 20 megapixels enough for {{LargeImage}}? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I've seen it used (presumably un-necessarily) on far smaller images. But this one surely is big enough for it. - MPF (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
        • OK, I added it (sorry Daniel). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, until I cleaned up the use of the LargeImage template (and the template itself) its use was a completely inconsistent mess (often times just used to brag about how awesomely "big" ones uploads were). Most of the really big images were not even tagged. I wrote and operate a bot that tags and untags images based on a fixed rule which makes the template a lot more useful. The threshold is of course chosen arbitrarily and I already stated my view on this on Template talk:LargeImage. To put it brief: 20MP is not computerbreakingly large these days. The image will get untagged automatically during the next bot run. --Dschwen (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
            • This pic is 38 megabytes . . . which would be a very severe problem for those people who are still on dial-up modems (of whom there are plenty, in rural and third-world regions). So I'd say the LargeImage is very relevant here. - MPF (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
              • Please raise you concerns at Template talk:LargeImage, thanks. --Dschwen (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
              • As far as this image is concerned this amount of bytes for this amount of pixels is a completely ridiculous compression factor. The image was apparently encoded by someone who does not have a clue about how JPG compression works. --Dschwen (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
                • Yes, I think 50 MP is a good standard for using this template. Thanks Dswchen. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 13:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy