Template:Did you know nominations/HD 115600
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
HD 115600
[edit]
- ... that the star HD 115600 had its debris disk (pictured) imaged in 2015?
Created by 2632cgn (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 14:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC).
New enough, just barely makes length at 1508 characters. Spot checks reveal no copyvios. QPQ done. Hook checks out, though some sentences lack references. Could you tell me more about the source of the image? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- The article creator, @2632cgn:, is an astrophysicist. He might be able to add some data on how/where info arises to the image file. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes, I created the image from the original source data, which I processed (i.e. I am one of the authors of the paper reporting this discovery). It is a slight modification to Fig. 1a in the discovery paper -- i.e. the file itself is cropped using GIMP instead of the displayed region of the Figure box cropped in creation of the LaTeX PDF document. It is also similar to various marked up versions of the same image that have appeared in the press and were likewise produced by one of the coauthors. So the file itself is a pure original but extremely similar to other image files likewise produced by the same authors. 2632cgn (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. Was the image published in Astrophysical Journal Letters as the citation says? If so their copyright policy says that they own the copyright but luckily they make it freely available under an attribution license which looks compatible with Wikipedia. It should be fine either way but it just makes a difference of what template properly goes on the image page. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. The actual image file on Wikipedia is not being used in the published version of the paper in ApJ Letters (the paper is currently in press). Both the published figure and the one uploaded to Wikipedia are drawn from the same FITS data. The difference is that 1) the ApJ Letters version is an encapsulated postscript image made from the FITS file and then *visually* cropped by LaTeX code after the fact to fine-tune figure placement, while 2) the Wikipedia image is a jpeg image made from the FITS file that was cropped to begin with (i.e. saved as a cropped file in GIMP: the dimensions of the two files are different). I.e. it is technically not the same image. I did this to make the copyright issues easier to deal with: IOP does not own a copyright to this particular file.2632cgn (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. Was the image published in Astrophysical Journal Letters as the citation says? If so their copyright policy says that they own the copyright but luckily they make it freely available under an attribution license which looks compatible with Wikipedia. It should be fine either way but it just makes a difference of what template properly goes on the image page. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
