Jump to content

Talk:Earth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Panamitsu (talk | contribs) at 23:41, 14 December 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Featured articleEarth is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starEarth is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2010, and on April 22, 2021.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
January 26, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 15, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 20, 2005Good article nomineeListed
July 25, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 2, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
November 8, 2006Featured topic candidatePromoted
March 9, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 21, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
August 27, 2008Featured topic candidateNot promoted
November 14, 2020Featured article reviewKept
June 13, 2021Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
June 20, 2022Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

The redirect Planet of Water has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21 § Planet of Water until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (uc) 01:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Third planet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21 § Ambiguous "planet 3" redirects until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (uc) 01:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE There are a lot of Third Planets in the Universe. It should be a disambiguation page instead of a redirection to the article Earth. 120.16.78.95 (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caption for main photo

[edit]

The caption on the main photo of Earth currently reads: "The Blue Marble, Apollo 17, December 1972". The photo used is the color-calibrated version of the Blue Marble, so I think the phrase "color calibrated" should be included somewhere, as all other planet captions mention being in true color, for example Mars. Speaking of Mars, the caption on that article also mentions the landmarks in the photo, so should we mention that in the Blue Marble photo "Africa can be seen, etc."?

Any thoughts? CherrySoda (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are necessary. We specify true color because readers are often expecting calibrated color (usually without being explicitly aware of a distinction), so we preempt their confusion. Nothing is miscommunicated, as the reader gets what they expect, and the image serves its purpose perfectly well in illustrating the article. (It is not the goal of this article to explain concepts in photography and optics to the reader, as it is an article about the planet Earth.) As per the landmarks, it's roughly the same idea: most people know what Africa looks like, so we are not ensuring the illustration is adequately explained by explicitly adding that. Remsense ‥  23:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm wrong File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg is the original, and is used at the The Blue Marble article. The original is the one that should be used here, not a remaster with vastly different coloring, and have exchanged the two. Thanks CherrySoda for putting attention on this concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we discussed this before? My understanding is we use the calibrated version because it is itself the most representative version, and therefore appropriate to represent Earth to an extent a calibrated photo normally wouldn't be Remsense ‥  02:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC) I was totally upside-down about this. These are the times I wish we could lock specific parts of specific articles from editing. Remsense ‥  02:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, just a question of clarification since I saw the photos get changed. Is the remaster of Blue Marble less accurate than the original? CherrySoda (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would characterize it as original research. I'm sure it's well-founded, but everything we do and show on Wikipedia should be based around what reliable sources do, and not our own investigation and results. Remsense ‥  03:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense, what? I'm absolutely shocked that Wikipedia can be so bureaucratic, to the point of blinding themselves with their conviction. It is not certain that the original Blue Marble picture has a more accurate than the recalibrated picture. That's because back then, NASA doesn't care about the true color of planets.
If you have taken a second to look at the description of File:The Blue Marble (remastered).jpg, there is a note that said "The end of most film magazines used on the Apollo missions include a photograph, presumably taken on earth, of a "KODAK Color Control Patch" on a chart containing mission and camera data. This color chart was used to calibrate the above photograph to better approximate real-world colors." Although it might be better that the author linked this in the description, the author also uploaded File:The Blue Marble White Balancing.jpg and linked to the calibration chart he uses to recalibrate the image. This is not original research. This is just adjusting the raw values of a picture with a known reference point. WhatisMars (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the actual calibration work was original research, based on a synthesis of sources but coming to a conclusion not found in any of the sources. That is a pretty straightforward reading of the policy. Remsense ‥  21:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Color calibration is a very common work that's done in... basically everywhere in photography? You should take a look at Color chart article and this image to see that this process is objective. WhatisMars (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not wrong here, it's just that this is a very special case. Given that the image is so particular, the color grading amounts to a claim in itself; by having a given version we are making a positive claim that it is correct or authoritative, not merely a technical calculation. Remsense ‥  21:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are misrepresenting me. If you taken a look at the ISS video feed of the Earth, you can clearly see that the ocean doesn't have a deep blue color nor that the vegetation is a dark moss color. Here's two videos of Earth in space: from the ISS and from the Polaris Dawn mission. This might not be the best calibrated picture that we can make, but this is the most faithful to observations made by a regular camera. WhatisMars (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, I really do. Like I said, I do not dispute that the calibrated version is what it purports itself to be! It is closer to what the photographer saw with their eyes while capturing the photo. But we are making a claim when we present The Blue Marble specifically: we are using it because it is such an iconic image, which creates this conundrum contrasting with what we normally want to enforce for good reason with MOS:ASTRO. I wish NASA would tweet "hey, good job" about the calibration—that would make this much easier in my mind. I know how silly, particular, and missing-the-point all this probably sounds to you, so I appreciate you engaging with me in good faith about it. Remsense ‥  21:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate that you are writing your rationale in more detail rather than just handwaving policy pages to the reader, unlike most Wikipedians here. Still, I still disagree with you because the Kodak color chart is designed so that the original color image can be adjusted to the correct, faithful value. This is not a matter of "originality", this is a matter of correctness. In the past, it's virtually impossible to adjust a developed picture in the film so that it would match with the charts and plus this is not a priority of NASA at the time, but now, we have the means to do so. WhatisMars (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, saying that "NASA would tweet "hey, good job" about the calibration—that would make this much easier in my mind" does not mean that you making an attempt to avoid original research, it just means that you are lazily accepting what the authorities are saying what is true or not. NASA is not the authority about color calibration and they have a poor track record on keeping the planet's color accurate (see this pic for example, where the Sun is orange and Venus's atmosphere is gone). I suggest you to read this blog at [1] to understand why true color is important and why relying on space agencies might not be a good idea. WhatisMars (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! I am trying to avoid saying what is true to a considerable degree, as one of our core content policies is verifiability, not truth. It's a real pain much of the time, but it's often our only avenue for constructively building a tertiary knowledge source meant for everyone in the world. Remsense ‥  21:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts allows for color-corrected images. Adjusting the colors of an image does not amount to photo manipulation and is permitted on Wikipedia. Aaron1a12 (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that negates any of what I've said above, if you consider the actual reasons and don't defer to a summary checklist. I also think it's rather tendentious to insist on the inclusion of a color-corrected version alongside the original on The Blue Marble: this puts into focus a clear case where color correction is functionally OR and nothing more. Remsense ‥  01:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2024

[edit]

Add fun facts at the end of the wiki Coolg42 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See WP:TRIVIA RudolfRed (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image for "After formation" section

[edit]

In the whole "Natural History" section there are four artist's impressions. The "After formation" section is illustrated by the "orange dot", a speculative view of how the Earth looked in the Archaean. There is already another artist's impression of the Archaean in the "Origin of life and evolution" section. There used to be an image there of actual rocks that displayed just some of the evidence used by geologists to disentangle Earth's history, shown here,

Carboniferous rocks that were folded, uplifted and eroded during the orogeny that completed the formation of the Pangaea supercontinent, before deposition of the overlying Triassic strata, in the Algarve Basin, which marked the start of its break-up

I would like editors to consider reinstating this image to this section. Mikenorton (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: only ocean worlds can contain life?

[edit]

The lead currently says "Earth is the third planet from the Sun and the only astronomical object known to harbor life. This is enabled by Earth being an ocean world..." The transition between the two sentences flows nicely, but it implies that we know that life can only exist on an ocean world. I think this misstates the current scientific understanding of this subject. T g7 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, I would say that it implies we only know for certain that life can exist on an ocean world, which certainly is the case. Remsense ‥  04:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, you could make any statement about Earth: "This is enabled by trees being green", and say that it only implies that life can exist on a planet with green trees, which certainly is the case. 2A01:CB1A:401D:177B:8273:773C:97A1:5132 (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the obvious difference that trees are alive, the other obvious difference is people have noticed how life on Earth was likely made possible by its oceans. Remsense ‥  03:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that life on Earth is made possible by the presence of water, instead of saying that it is made possible because of the presence of oceans? T g7 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To that, add, 'presence of *liquid water*' (unless you believe extremophiles could evolve on a steam-world). Beyond that, an excess of water relative to landmass is the condition that likely results in oceans. Given a lot lower water/land ratio, I don't see anything to prevent formation of a 'Minnesota planet', with minor land elevation differences, and studded with ponds and streams everywhere; or a mostly waterlogged, 'Bayou planet', covered with trees or vegetation almost everywhere, soaking in variable amounts of water, maybe some flattish continents here and there, but nowhere having enough water for the runoff to pool into oceans. Don't see why life couldn't arise in either of those situations: plenty of water, no oceans. Mathglot (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Picture change

[edit]

Which picture should be used in the lead?

Prior discussion:

WhatisMars (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(@WhatisMars, would you mind specifically tagging the photos as A and B for convenience?)
I'll repeat my previous position briefly. To my knowledge, photo B is the most recognizable rendering of The Blue Marble, one of the most famous photographs in human history, by a significant margin. In my mind, this overrides our ordinary guideline to use a true color photograph as the primary image in the article lead for astronomical objects. Given the particularity of the photograph, in my mind the color correcting process used to create photo A strays uncomfortably close to original research; while the process is generally considered merely technical, the fact that The Blue Marble is a subject of discussion in its own right means to me that we should only reproduce versions of it previously published in reliable sources. Remsense ‥  19:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. T g7 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added image C, and prefer it due to the lesser amount of cloud cover, leading to more recognizable continents at the scale likely to be used in the Infobox. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Tangential and unsure at present if I would prefer it in lead position, but wow that photograph is particularly gorgeous.) Remsense ‥  20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B (invited by the bot) It's more authentic and also has better differentiation. BTW, as someone with background in the field, arguing that a particular versions is "what they actually saw" is not a sound argument. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C was not in the RFC when I made my post. C is OK, but still prefer B — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talkcontribs) 22:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C (Following WP:RFC/SCI) I don't think being the most recognizable photo of earth necessarily makes B the most representative photo of Earth, though it would certainly be the lead image in some future Images of Earth article. C is more recent, shows more surface area vs cloud cover, and includes a far higher percentage of Earth's human population. Safrolic (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. For the following reasons:
  1. That B is the "default", culturally significant version of The Blue Marble is irrelevant. What matters here is representing the object as closely as possible to what it actually looks like. I am aware that there is no such thing as a "true" photograph, but if A is arguably closer to what a human observer would experience than B, then A must be the preferred choice.
  2. That said, A has the advantage over C of being a version of a culturally significant image; this is not a great advantage IMHO but it could flip the choice towards it.
  3. The real problem of C is that it is somehow less representative. There is more sea than land on Earth, and A/B show this somehow better than C. Also Earth has a significant cloud cover; picking an image of Earth with low cloud cover in temperate regions could be misleading. All images show both tropical and polar regions, but A/B shows much better the polar ice cap of Antarctica, hinting better at the diversity of climates on Earth.
--cyclopiaspeak! 09:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either C (per above) or a different picture. I'll write my rationale once I have access to a better device. ZZZ'S 14:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Picture A would be a nice fit, I definitely think the accuracy of the image matters more than how iconic it is Kypickle (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to be troubled by this argument being acceptable—keeping in mind a claim we are making here whether we find it important or not is "this is the representative version of The Blue Marble", one that is not verifiable in any reliable source—for claims made with images when it surely would not be for claims made with prose. Remsense ‥  03:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding, we are discussing which image best represents Earth and is to be used as the leading image in its article, not which image best represents The Blue Marble. We should thus use an image which most accurately represents Earth, and A is the best option by far. AstroChara (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C: Most recent, the photo from the 1970s is antiquated by comparison. ―Howard🌽33 22:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. As per cyclopia above. Qflib (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think C is the better picture, in regard of recency, quality, and the orientation including more land while retaining a diverse cloud cover (also, it might be considered irrelevant but I think the fact that the blue marble picture has its own article is an argument for having a different one on this article). Choucas Bleutalkcontribs 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. As per cyclopia. Cultural significance is irrelevant when it comes to representing a celestial body, and in some cases it can also perpetuate misinformation, which I believe is something we want to avoid on Wikipedia.
AstroChara (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B or C. I agree with User:Remsense. I will explain why I think version A should not be used.
Version B is the original "Blue Marble" photo. We are told that Version A was "color corrected." It is implied that state-of-the-art techniques were used on a decades-old photo to balance out the colors to provide an accurate version of the photo. This, it is implied, is what the Earth really looks like, to objective observers-- it is the natural appearance of the Earth.
The Wikipedia article on color correction is titled Color balance. Anyone who has played with the color sliders on a camera app on a phone knows that color correction can be a subjective process. Someone makes the decisions on how to do the color correction. Software is used, and different software may correct colors in different ways. What software was used on this photo of the Earth? What settings were used within the software? I am not saying we need to know the answers to these questions in order to include a photo on Wikipedia. Rather, I am pointing out that this color-corrected photo was produced by a person or people who made decisions about how to correct the colors. This color-corrected photo, to my knowledge, has not been vetted or approved by any outside organization. As such, this is likely WP:Original Research and, therefore, not appropriate for this article. As Remsense correctly pointed out, had NASA (or some other authoritative source) approved this color-corrected photo, we would be having a different conversation. But my understanding is that NASA did not approve it. So I think photo A should not be used. What do you think? T g7 (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]