File talk:Black hole - Messier 87.jpg

10 April 2019 edit request

{{edit request}} According to the sourced link, the image should be listed under the CC-BY 3.0 license (not 4.0). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 14:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@HapHaxion:  Done. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Which of the papers in the link is File:Black hole - Messier 87.jpg from? It looks like the dates of the images are April 2017, contradicting the date given here. I think the credit should read "The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration" as that is the authorship listed in the source. --Mu301 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mu301: good question, @Theklan: could you answer? As an admin, I can change the page afterwards. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: I think we can confidently change the date to "April 2017" per "campaign conducted in 2017 April" as stated in the source link, at least until we can pin down the specifics. Just to be clear - the paper contains simulation graphics, individual images on specific dates, and also a composite image. I'm not clear on which one this is. --Mu301 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: I can't point to the exact page now, as I can see all the composites but not the high quality one. Nevertheless, we can find the image now at the NASA webpage also, and the Events Horizon Telescope web pointed (when the image was uploaded) to this special IOP number and the NSF web for high resolution images (the uploaded one), which publishes everything under Template:PD-USGov-NSF. They ask in this image to credit the telescope: Event Horizon Telescope collaboration et al.. -Theklan (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest using the caption at the EHT website as the description. It might be a good idea to clarify that this is an EHF VLBI radio telescope image (observing wavelength 1.3 mm / 230 GHz) to avoid confusion that it is an optical telescope image. --Mu301 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Also the link should refer to the specific journal article here instead of the page for the journal itself. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 15:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add {{ImageExtracted|Black hole - Messier 87 (cropped).jpg}}. thank U, MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The only photo the featured picture community won't touch

No one wants to nominate this for featured picture? whaaaaaaa? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I spoke too soon!. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Before nominating it for, actually, deletion...

Hi all, the image seems to have had its license reviewed but the fact is that this is not the image provided in here, but in other location. Thus, this image (unless covered by other license), is not suitable to be here. Of course we can use any of the ones in the article, but not this specific image, which comes form the ESA site. Am I missing anything? --Discasto _talk 10:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, There is only one source for this image, that is the Event Horizon Telescope team. And why would there be different licenses for different versions? I don't see any issue. I uploaded the original image from the source. Just the same, but larger. In addition, there is full EXIF data with a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Images on the ESO website are stated to be covered by CC-BY-4.0[1] I would argue that the 3.0 takes precedence given the ESO credit to EHT, but 4.0 is in the exif. We can quibble about which version of CC-BY is appropriate, but this image is clearly covered by an acceptable license as the creators intended. Please see the summary that I included at File:3C 279 source.jpg. The original authors requested that attribution include "title of the work, journal citation and DOI" which I have provided. I would argue that this, and other, images from the same publication should include similar info, but can't fix it myself. --Mu301 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine, I'm more than glad that the license is right. @Yann: whether the image from the ESA site and the one in the article are the same is beyond my knowledge. The article provides several images, with different dates. Which one is the same as in the ESO site? No idea. Thus, claiming that as both images seem to be similar are covered by the same license seems... weak. @Mu301: thank you. In fact I do think this is the right approach (considering the EXIF information as well). Thank you to all of you --Discasto _talk 15:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, This is an international project with many partners, but eventually the publishing source is unique: the Event Horizon Telescope team. It is not like the NSF publised one image, and ESO published another image. Now the article is under CC-BY-3.0, while the images (different resolutions, crops, and formats) are under CC-BY-4.0. I don't see any issue here. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to note I have uploaded a new JPG taken from the "Original" tiff (https://www.eso.org/public/archives/images/original/eso1907a.tif) and saved with maximum level 12 quality. The one uploaded by Yann has approx level 10 quality with some block artefacts visible at high magnification. The source TIF image has some random noise which is likely inherent in the production and requires minimal compression to reproduce faithfully in JPG. The first version uploaded was likely smoothed. -- Colin (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)