Talk:Earth

Earth Banner Image - Nominate, Comment, and Vote!

BRIEF Followup - Table below may (or may not) be helpful:

VOTING RESULTS (N=17) - Images of Earth - a/o 3pm/et/usa, 10 August 2015

1. "Blue Marble-1972"(9?)	2. "ElektroL1"(Deleted)	3. "Earthrise"(1)	4. "BlueMarble-1997"	5. BlueMarble-2012"	6. "Blue Marble-1972-CC"	7. "Earth-2015-USA" (3)	8. "Earth-2015-Africa" (3?)	9. "Earth-OceanOnly" (UnAvailable) (1)
A2soup Drbogdan EvenSteven? Huntster Joannebogdan Praemonitus Rfassbind Serendipodous SkywalkerPL	[none]	(70.51.203.69)	[none]	[none]	[none]	BDS2006 Kwami Ɱ	Cinemologist? JorisvS PhilipTerryGraham	Dustin

In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The existing discussions regarding the banner image appear to be NASA-centric and do not represent a worldwide view of the issue. We need to consider all options and not just NASA images if the community is to reach an unbiased and well-informed decision on which image is most appropriate for representing the Earth.

Comparing photographs only on their technical and aesthetic merits in so far as those merits help in achieving a vivid and accurate representation of Earth, I'd like to put this up to a vote so the Wikipedia community can decide which image ought to represent this planet we all happen to inhabit.

I will nominate two photos ("1" and "2", respectively) which I believe are strong contenders as they are the only full disk photographs of the Earth on Wikimedia Commons that I'm aware of. "1" is the incumbent banner image captured from Apollo 17 in 1972 while "2" was captured by the Elektro-L No.1 satellite in 2014 from geostationary Earth orbit.

Please feel free to nominate additional image options below. I look forward to hearing from all of you. BDS2006 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just added a third option ("3.") which was nominated by an unknown user with the IP address 70.51.203.69. --BDS2006 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Earth - banner image candidates

1. "Blue Marble-1972" - Earth, as seen from Apollo 17 on 7 December, 1972. Chemically and digitally corrected.

2. DELETED IMAGE - "ElektroL1" - Earth, as seen from Elektro-L No.1 on 18 March, 2014. Digitally corrected.

3. "Earthrise" - Earth, as seen from Apollo 8 on 24 December 1968. Chemically and digitally corrected.

Earth - banner image candidates - NEW

4. "Blue Marble-1997" - Earth, as seen from GOES on 9 September 1997. Digitally corrected. (NEW - a/o 2 July 2015)

5. "Blue Marble-2012" - Earth, as seen from the Suomi NPP satellite on 4 January 2012. True-Color mosaic. (NEW - a/o 3 July 2015)

6. "Blue Marble-1972-CC" - Earth, as seen from Apollo 17 on 7 December, 1972. Color-Corrected. (NEW - a/o 4 July 2015).

Earth - banner image candidates - NEW

7. "Earth-2015-USA" - Earth, as seen from the DSCOVR on 6 July 2015. (NEW - a/o 20 July 2015).

8. "Earth-2015-Africa" - Earth, as seen from the DSCOVR on 6 July 2015. (NEW - a/o 1 August 2015).

9. UNAVAILABLE IMAGE - "Earth-OceanOnly"

I prefer the second, it being of much higher quality. That said, the Apollo image (the first) has become iconic. --JorisvS (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the original image is iconic, but at the same time, a single image that is not a composite or CGI and better quality really is more informative. Serendi^podous 09:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I now see that the second image says "in false color", which now makes me prefer the first. --JorisvS (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah. OK. Forget it then. Serendi^podous 10:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If accurate colors is the primary concern for choosing a banner photo, neither of the photos are necessarily the best choice. The original Apollo photograph was shot on a special negative (SO-368) combined with a lens filter that deemphasized blue and caused other alterations to the image's colors. The astronauts aboard Apollo 17 were not instructed to take photos of the Earth, as their equipment was limited and prepared for use in the lunar landing mission. The famous Apollo photo was unplanned. Unlike today's astronauts aboard the ISS, the astronauts of the early 70s didn't have the luxury of calibrating digital cameras on the fly and shooting RAW images. Therefore, understanding that the Apollo image is not a perfect color representation of the Earth (hence why there are countless versions of the Apollo photo color corrected in differing ways including the version here), the fact that the second image (Elektro-L) has also undergone color correction does not make it an inferior image.

The Apollo photo is unbeatable for historical value, but in selecting a banner photo of Earth we need to evaluate the image in terms of the information it contains. The Apollo photo is dominated by the oceans and clouds but we don't see much of the inhabited world. It's a great perspective over Africa and the Sahara/Arabia deserts, but Earth's unique range of geography and biodiversity is not clearly seen. Notice that the Apollo image isn't even the full-disk image it's described as. It's actually slightly gibbous (waning gibbous) in which the shadow is overtaking the right side of the earth (from our perspective).

The Elektro-L has very intentional composition, directly above the equator and includes most of the world's population. It's a detailed image captured with up-to-date, 21st century technology, so there's high informational value. A combination of the photograph's strong composition and high resolution means we're able to extract a lot of information from it. Notice the snow capped mountain ranges throughout Asia and Tibet, for instance. Most of the world's significant islands are clearly visible, including very small islands in the Indian Ocean. Going from North to South we can see both the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle (including Finland/Scandinavia in the North and Antarctica in the South), and West to East we can see from Europe to East Asia and even Papua New Guinea and Australia in their entirety.

Understanding that both options are real (yet altered) photographs, the first one (Apollo) is great for historical value, but the second one (Elektro-L) shows most of the inhabited planet from straight above the equator, is an actual full-disk image, and is very detailed containing a lot of visual information about our planet Earth. Option 2 (Elektro-L) is very informative and relevant as an encyclopedic photo of Earth, therefore I vote for Option 2. Cinemologist (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For me, correcting colors is not a problem. But if the second is in false color, which implies that it is deliberately different from how it would look to the human eye, it would be misleading, especially because the false colors would not be immediately noticeable. However, it seems that although the description says "false color", other parts of say it is not (only that the original with which it was made was), which means that the image description should be corrected to accurately reflect this, and that my preference goes to the second image again. --JorisvS (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your feedback. I hope this discussion will grow to include many voices since we are talking about the defining image of the Earth here. --BDS2006 (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As the editor who restored the Blue Marble photo (number 1 here) with discussion several months ago, I am still in favor of using it as the lead image. The previous discussion compared the Blue Marble to a low-altitude composite and so is not really relevant here, except for the historical significance point. In addition, I was previously unaware that the Blue Marble photo was taken through a blue-desaturating filter. However, I still think that there are objective reasons to prefer the Blue Marble to the alternative presented here.

My understanding of the Elektro-L image from its description on commons is that it was shot without any color filters and colorized to match what Earth's colors are known to be. This does not necessarily mean that the colors are any less accurate than those in the Blue Marble (indeed, they may be more accurate), but the colorization was not done at all well in some parts. If you view the full-size image (zoom in), you can see that in the western Philippines, southwestern Madagascar, islands off the northwest coast of the Malay Peninsula, most egregiously around the bays of India's upper right and left corners, and around coasts in general, the coloration is quite pixelated and frankly ugly.

I also see from the commons description that the outer rim of the Earth (essentially, the atmosphere) was retouched, as it was obstructed when the image was taken. This retouching was done quite well relative to the colorization, but when compared to the Earth's rim in the Blue Marble shot, you can easily see that it may not be very accurate. It seems that the atmosphere in the Elektro-L image was based on backlit images from low orbit like this one. Although I am not expert on the matter, the Blue Marble image suggests to me that the atmosphere may not be nearly so prominent when lit from the front, as it is in the Elektro-L image.

I don't think that the higher resolution of the Elektro-L image is enough to outweigh, its sloppy coloration, questionable depiction of the atmosphere, and the Blue Marble's historical significance. I am not universally opposed to the prospect of replacing the Blue Marble, but the bar is high, and the Elektro-L shot is not the image to do it. Many thanks to BDS2006 for starting this discussion. A2soup (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You're not holding the Blue Marble photo to the same standard of scrutiny. Yes, at 100% scale the Elektro-L image (number 2) contains noticeable compression artifacts, but perhaps the image's sharpness is preferable to a blown-up and blurry image, which is what we get with the Blue Marble at 100% (number 1).

At 100% zoom, the Blue Marble photo suffers countless chemical and digital artifacts, ranging from intense red and blue noise in space and the presence of severe noise across the entire face of the planet, to a thick and sickly green halo artifact surrounding the North, West, and Southern rim of the Earth. On the Eastern side of the Earth, the portion of the planet that's falling into darkness, the image quality again suffers from severe noise and artifacts.

Regarding Earth’s atmosphere, take a look at this recent single photograph of Earth taken by Japan's space agency from approximately the same distance as Elektro-L.

In the linked image, the Earth is certainly "front-lit" and the atmosphere is clearly visible. I compared both the linked image and the Elektro-L image looking at comparable portions of the sun-lit outer rim and they look essentially identical.

The Blue Marble photo, although culturally the most popular, is not the best reference for what a full-disk Earth actually looks like from space. The Blue Marble isn't even a full-disk image. Granted, there is no perfect single shot of a full-disk Earth in existence. At least the Elektro-L image is a full disk photo and it is a sharp image that conveys much more information and detail about our planet than the Blue Marble photo. Every image will have its own drawbacks, however if we are to nitpick about image noise and artifacts then the Blue Marble photo quite obviously suffers far more problems than the Elektro-L. Perhaps the biggest problem with the Elektro-L image is we're really not used to seeing a picture of the Earth that utilizes the best of modern technology capturing images in such vivid detail, and that's actually not a problem at all. We got used to an early 1970s representation of the Earth, but that's not a logical argument for selecting the Blue Marble. As for historical significance, the Blue Marble photo is most relevant in articles relating to historical subjects such as achievements by NASA and articles relating to the Apollo missions.

Let's remember that this discussion is for the Earth article. The subject of historical significance here should be the Earth itself, a planet billions of years in the making, not a photograph taken 40 years ago. So, the real question is which photo most accurately depicts the planet we live on?

The Elektro-L photo (number 2) still gets my vote. --Cinemologist (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The first one looks much more natural to my eyes. There's a hint of a shadow along the right edge that suggests a spherical shape, and apparently a highlight at the center from sunlight reflected off the Indian Ocean. The second image looks a bit like a fish bowl view. Thus the first gets my preference. Praemonitus (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

My persona preference is Earthrise. It shows Earth as a small world, there being other worlds out there -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: You are always adding and adjusting images of astronomical objects-- perhaps you would like to weigh in? A2soup (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank you for letting me know of the discussion - seems all the suggested images above (ie, "Blue Marble"/Image-1; "Elektro-L"/Image-2; "Earthrise"/Image-3) are "Excellent" imo - but my preference (as well as that of User:Joannebogdan) atm would be => "Elektro-L"/Image-2 as a banner image for the Earth article - seems this is the clearest image and, as a result, may best represent the article - iac - Thanks again for the opportunity to comment/vote? - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW (I'm no expert), I vote with Drbogdan here, same reasons. Evensteven (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! To get a final read on consensus, maybe Serendipodous and JorisvS could give their current opinion? They were the first to discuss this, but it's not clear to me which side they ended up on. A2soup (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Anon, the Earthrise is not a picture of Earth (but of Earth as seen from the Moon with part of the Moon itself visible), and hence is inappropriate for use in the infobox. --JorisvS (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a literal interpretation. I remember when it was taken, and it was always considered a picture of the Earth then, taken from far away, and showing how far away by presenting a moonscape in the foreground. It's always been about the Earth. "Inappropriate" is perhaps too strong. Less useful for the article? That I can agree with. These days, there are more vibrant images available. But the perspective of the Earth far away is still a powerful image, a perspective that we've grown used to. That perspective was an eye-opener when it was first published, and can be again for anyone who really considers what it represents. Evensteven (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Earthrise is inappropriate for this article, which is about the planet Earth. It would be appropriate for an article about Earth's relationship with the moon, but not here. Right now I'm still leaning toward the Blue Marble, but I'll go with consensus if it blows the other way. Serendi^podous 21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Honestly! Do you not see that's basically what I was saying, that we shouldn't use it? But you're simply wrong that it's just "about Earth's relationship with the moon". It's about the fact that Earth is our home. All our history, our cultures, our civilizations, our existence has played out on this globe, over centuries, and all the time humanity focused on the different locations on its surface and what happened at each. The image puts that into perspective: it all happened here - Earth is one place - it is small, even viewed from so miniscule a distance as its moon. The focus of the image is about Earth, not about the moon. The moon is only there to give it the proper perspective. Is that so hard to understand? Don't be such a legalist! It's self-limiting! And it can limit articles too, if it causes people to put artificial limits on article scope. I'm not saying that's been a problem here, but legalistic thinking can always lead to such problems. What's an encyclopedic article but something that concisely tries to put a topic into perspective? Without perspective, also called "context", information is mere data, a miscellaneous collection of raw facts that do not have any particular meaning. We're in the business here of mining the data and presenting what it means. Let's not forget that! Evensteven (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Earthrise is not an image of Earth, because you can also see the Moon. It's as straightforward as that. --JorisvS (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@JorisvS: That's an opinion; it's as straightforward as that. My opinion is that yours is rubbish (and vice versa); it's also as straightforward as that. Let's agree to disagree about what is or is not an image of Earth. It doesn't seem to affect the proposal here. Evensteven (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Weighing the strengths and weaknesses of all 3 images as presented through the fascinating and remarkably informative arguments in this discussion section, I now feel sufficiently informed to cast my vote. Every image is flawed in its own unique way as you have all collectively pointed out. Nonetheless, one of these images compensates for its flaws more generously than the others.

Let me first explain my reasoning. Although no image is perfect, there is certainly educational value in being able to click into a photograph and see a striking amount of detail (information). I feel more well-informed about the appearance of our planet when looking carefully at the second image. At 300px, both 1 and 2 are clear depictions of the Earth from space. But even at thumbnail size, the second image maintains two key advantages over the first. Firstly, it is a true full-disk image (as opposed to gibbous) and, secondly, it's centered on the equator. The second point is important for a number of reasons: it depicts the Northern and Southern hemispheres evenly and the equator makes a natural midpoint for astronomical, electromagnetic, and geographical reasons. Furthermore, 80% of the world's population can see itself in that image. Only the Americas do not make an appearance in the image; every other continent is visible. For those reasons, I feel compelled to cast my vote for the second image (2.).

I would like to send a heartfelt thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion. I'd also like to encourage further input from anyone who hasn't had a chance to speak. I will respect whichever decision is arrived at by the WP community on this and all other matters. --BDS2006 (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: It's not. The infobox requires an image that shows what Earth looks like, and hence and image of Earth. An image of Earth is an image that includes only Earth. Earthrise is an image that includes Earth in it, but not exclusively. It depicts not how Earth looks like, but that it is just one small world (as you've correctly said) and a view of it from the Moon. There is value in including it, but it is not an image appropriate for the infobox. --JorisvS (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have stated repeatedly that I don't think it belongs in the infobox, and I agree that the best reason for that is that it does not depict what the Earth looks like in itself, surely a reasonable criterion for the infobox. And I have also stated repeatedly that Earthrise puts the Earth in perspective, which is its especial value, making it valuable for inclusion elsewhere in the article. What is the argument, then? Evensteven (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a discussion about the image in the infobox and you started defending it when I stated to the anon that its use in the infobox is inappropriate. But apparently we agree about it. --JorisvS (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Correct. We agree that there is a better image to use in the infobox, but not that Earthrise is "inappropriate". It is entirely appropriate that it be considered. It is iconic, and it is all about Earth. It is not your decision to support another image that I object to, but to your reason for rejecting Earthrise, as though it should never have been included. Do you understand me now? Evensteven (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you now seem to disagree with me again. It is quite inappropriate for the infobox (for the reasons I've already specified). It is not inappropriate in the body of the article, though. --JorisvS (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course we disagree on one point, as I have said all along. I don't understand why it seems to you that I have changed what I'm saying. But I have pointed out before that our disagreement doesn't and hasn't prevented either of us from settling on a different image for the infobox. Can we now agree to disagree on why? Evensteven (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

But what do you disagree with me on exactly? --JorisvS (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That "Earthrise" is not an image that is "inappropriate" for the infobox, that it is also "about Earth" despite the moonscape, that it is iconic and extremely recognizable as depicting important aspects of the Earth, that Earth's physicality and astronomical data is not all there is to the article scope even if that is a major focus, and finally, that I still think there is a better image for the infobox. What I hear in your "inappropriate" is a denial from you of everything I just said, except the agreement about the infobox. I am aware of the main thrust of the discussion, but I think it's important that these discussions keep their proper perspective also, and I have made a point of this because I think your "inappropriate" also implies that the discussion should have been within narrower boundaries. I can't agree to that either. BTW, the "one point" we disagree on is "inappropriate", the point where all these things meet. Evensteven (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Finally some clarity where the disagreement is. However, what you say in the middle confuses me. What is your point exactly? --JorisvS (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If I interpret "middle" correctly, I guess it's a way of emphasizing how your word "inappropriate" sums up the disagreement, standing opposite to my list. I do understand that we're simply looking at these things from a different standpoint, holding this thing or that thing as having greater or lesser importance. But I figure that one of the reasons for holding discussions is to air such standpoints so that everyone can take a look at them, and I just wanted to ensure that here. I'm still comfortable with agreeing to disagree. Evensteven (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm apparently not going to understand what your saying with the current approach. Let me try it another way: What would be appropriate about using it in the infobox? --JorisvS (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

In general, I think an infobox image should be something that elicits (as much as possible) the article's essence, its scope, and its focus. I think it's helpful when that image can also be visually gripping or engaging in some way: that's what images do best. So, it gets the reader's attention, and hopefully conjures an intuitive picture in the reader's mind that represents the article topic. Now, I think that Earthrise is not the most visually gripping image there, but of all of them, it is the one that offers the most perspective. It puts Earth in its place in the universe, as much as an image could. And as it puts our home in the universe into perspective, it also puts our own perspective of Earth itself in its place by focusing our attention on the big picture rather than the detailed close-up we (humankind) has always had. We look at it, and we get perspective on ourselves. And the Earth is the reason for the place, because it has always been our place, our home. So, this image offers, uniquely among images, the opportunity to consider what kind of a look at the Earth we are going to take here. That's an appropriate opportunity, and if chosen, it would be an appropriate perspective to offer the reader. On balance, I find that the article itself is more limited, dealing primarily with physical properties and mostly "close-up" astronomical details. Other images offer a better depiction of that, so that's why I chose one of those. But they're all appropriate for consideration, imo. Evensteven (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done - updated the banner image on the Earth article to the "Elektro-L"/Image-2 - which received the most votes (6 of 10; a/o 10:10am/et/usa, 2 July 2015) - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a vote, but I do feel that consensus is on the side of the Elektro-L image for now, and not without good arguments. I'll take it as a call to find a better modern, high-res Earth image without the artifacts present in this one. Farewell, Blue Marble... *sniff* miss you always... A2soup (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

PERHAPS - Another full-disk image (NASA; "BlueMarble-2"?) of the planet Earth *may* be a possible consideration? - at the following => http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/54000/54388/BlueMarble.jpg - and described at the following => http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=54388 - However, the image credit ("Image created by Reto Stockli with the help of Alan Nelson, under the leadership of Fritz Hasler") *may* make the NASA image unavailable to Wikipedia? - if there is further interest in this image, we might want to ask User:Huntster, who may have experience with such images, for an opinion - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK at the moment - the "File:Earth-BlueMarble-1997.jpg" image (see below) was created *entirely* by US Federal Government employees - including those primarily from NASA, NOAA and USGS - and, as a result, the image *may* be *entirely* suitable for use by Wikipedia after all - in any case - Comments Welcome on the use of the image as a banner image for the Earth article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

4. "Blue Marble-1997".

Not a huge fan of this one. It is a CGI image based on real data from disparate sources. It is relatively low-resolution and doesn't look much like either the Blue Marble or Elektro-L, which makes me think that it probably is not very lifelike. Thanks for suggesting it, though :) A2soup (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Rather low resolution and are Earth's colors really that vivid? --JorisvS (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Doc. I tend to agree with A2soup here...it's just too CGI-esque for my taste. I honestly feel that the Apollo 17 remains the best representative images of Earth. However, the far larger issue in my mind is why the Elektro-L image is even viable for inclusion. Yes, the uploader says the license is CC0, but I'm finding no evidence that it was released by Roscosmos as such. It would certainly be unusual for them. I've asked the uploader about it on Commons, so hopefully I'll get a response. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This very recent, hi-resolution image was taken by the Japanese weather satellite Himwari-8 in October. I don't know what it's copyright status is though. This one's a mosaic, but it does seem to be in true colour. It's also from NASA so it's free to use. Serendi^podous 13:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Himwari-8 material is likely copyrighted, as JAXA's stuff is by default. The NASA mosaic is not a good candidate as it is more of a fish-eye view of Earth...somewhat distorted. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

YES - agreed atm re the NASA mosaic image (see below) - others may (or may not) wish to comment - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

5. "Blue Marble-2012".

This one shows the USA as being the size of Asia, which is puzzling, and also pretty inaccurate. A2soup (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So I know we have a lot of candidates already, but I found one that I think is worth having on the table (added to the gallery at top, with a small version down here to avoid clutter). The criticism of the Blue Marble that resonated most with me so far is BDS2006's assertion that it was taken with a filter/film combo that de-emphasized blue and caused other color artifacts. I can see that the color scheme in the Blue Marble is, in fact, different from the other images (including Earthrise), which are all basically similar to each other. So I found a color-corrected version of the Blue Marble, which has been altered to match the color scheme in Elektro-L, Earthrise, and others. I don't think that the color-correction should be too much of an issue, since consensus supported Elektro-L, which is a non-color image with all the color added in processing. I'm still fine with Elektro-L, but if it turns out to have copyright issues, perhaps this image can be considered as a way to address at least one concern with the original Blue Marble (which is still my first choice, btw). A2soup (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

6. "Blue Marble-1972-CC" (Color-Corrected).

New DSCOVR image

NEW - ADDED a recently released "Earth" image for possible consideration - per NASA, 20 July 2015 - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

7. "Earth-2015-USA".

Non-composite? Check. Taken in color? Check. No obvious digital artifacts? Check. I can get behind this one 100%, although I don't necessarily prefer it to the Blue Marble. I look forward to more images from DSCOVR soon! A2soup (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging participants in the original discussion (especially those who preferred Elektro-L) to comment on this new candidate from DSCOVR vs. Blue Marble: Huntster Praemonitus Serendipodous BDS2006 Cinemologist Evensteven JorisvS. A2soup (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The DSCOVR image seems considerably inferior to the Blue Marble image. Hardly any landmass is visible; it's mostly just clouds. Again, I don't understand the opposition to the Blue Marble image... — Huntster (t @ c) 00:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I still prefer Blue Marble as well, but I figured that since more editors wanted to change it last time than not, it was only fair to let them know that another candidate comparable to Elektro-L was available. A2soup (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Why the opposition to ocean? The earth is 70% ocean, and a representative photo would reflect that. Our bias for land means we often convey a false impression of the earth. I prefer the Blue Marble myself, but your point strikes me as a reason to support the new image. — kwami (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• This first DSCOVR image is wonderful, but I still prefer the Blue Marble because of its historical importance. Maybe we can fit both in the Earth article? Or perhaps we can sub the DSCOVR img for the Blue Marble in a few of the articles that use it, to give the reader a bit more variety. — kwami (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That's certainly an idea (subbing in a few articles) I could get behind, but may I suggest that we wait until a broader array of DSCOVR images are available, preferably for one that is a little cleaner. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

IMO that's precisely what we shouldn't do. The muted colors are real. They took special care with this first image. In later images, the red and green components will be downsampled to 25%, with only the blue at full res. Also, they plan to subtract out atmospheric scattering to sharpen surface detail, but at the cost of making the images less realistic. If we want to show the reader what Earth looks like from space, this first image may be our best bet. — kwami (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Lakdawalla discusses the DSCOVR images here. She also explains why North America is exaggerated in size in MODIS image. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, good find! She discusses (with direct quotes from a DSCOVR project scientist) how this first image was specially processed for verisimilitude rather than science data, but the rest won't be. A2soup (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure the first img is biased in that it was purposefully timed to center on NAmerica, in contrast to the original Blue Marble, which was just a random shot. But it is also closer to representative as to how much water there is on the planet. — kwami (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This new one looks like a good option, for the reasons kwami and A2soup have given. Apollo's Blue Marble is the only other real option, because img#2 has apparently been deleted for being released by Roscosmos, img#3 is not an image of just Earth, img#4 has horrible colors, and img#5 shows North America way too large compared to how it would actually look. The Apollo image is of such historical importance that if we opt for this image in the infobox (which I think we should), it should still be included in body of the article. --JorisvS (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

---

 Done - updated the banner image on the Earth article to the new DSCOVR "Earth-2015"/Image-7 - which seems to be sufficiently supported at the moment - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering how we could retain both images, and the culture section does it well. I copy-edited, as it was a bit jumbled. Sources mention three post-antiquity culturally transformative ideas: the Earth is round, the Earth is a planet, and the view of the Earth from space. The Gaia hypothesis IMO belongs in with the mythology section (it's a modern permutation of Mother Earth), but it is also a product of the Space Age. (It's not really notable in such a short summary except as an example of how the Blue Marble affected culture.) Anyway, I hope the result is a bit more coherent. — kwami (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

DSCOVR gives NASA the dubious distinction of being the last major space agency in the world to capture a full-disk photograph of the Earth from a satellite. That being said, it is the most true-to-life photograph of our planet to date. Not the most detailed, but certainly accurate. I only wish they upgraded the sensor after taking it out of storage after 17 years. Sensor technology has advanced dramatically since 1998 but I guess they decided to save $1000 by keeping the old 4 MP sensor. Literally any sensor used in any mass-market DSLR from the past decade would put the one on DSCOVR to shame. And a shame it is that after 17 years and $340 million, NASA ultimately used a sensor comparable to the one in my BlackBerry phone from 2008, which cost $20/unit to produce in China. Considering that all sides of the Earth will be captured fully-illuminated by DSCOVR, I think this discussion will continue for some time as we debate which side of the Earth most represents the Earth, however absurd that may seem. Unsurprisingly, NASA's favorite view includes the United States. I only hope we will see more images with the same level of integrity as this first one; NASA is infamous for altering and even outright fabricating images of the Earth and then marketing them as, "the most accurate image of the Earth" (see images #4 and #5 above if you think I'm using hyperbole). In conclusion, I applaud NASA for deeming the Earth a worthy subject for photography. --BDS2006 (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The new photo from NASA is absolutely stunning and long-overdue. DSCOVR is far greater than the Apollo 17 “Blue Marble” precisely because it’s not historical, it’s now. I’m not voting for it yet though, I’m waiting for NASA to release subsequent photos.

Bear in mind, from a distance of approx. 930,000 miles we’ll be able to see almost 50% of the surface of the Earth. Since alternative DSCOVR photos are bound to come out in the near future, DSCOVR will soon be competing with itself for the Earth banner image.

Sadly after 40 plus years the image detail is only a slight improvement over the Blue Marble but at least we’re finally seeing carefully-calibrated colors. It's scary that NASA is saying they’re surprised by the detail of the images, it seems they were expecting much worse out of the 2048x2048 image sensor. I agree with BDS2006 that DSCOVR appears to be refurbished 1990s technology. Additionally, probably due to the way the image is processed, artifacts do appear in the image, most noticeably the artifacts surrounding the rim of the Earth that somewhat obscures the otherwise beautiful enveloping halo. Likely the low resolution images are an easy solution to the problem of bandwidth. Subsequent photos of the Earth will have two color channels (red and green) downscaled to 1024x1024 but considering the blurriness of this first 2048x2048 photo I think it won’t be very noticeable if those two channels are upscaled to 2048x2048 and combined with the 2048x2048 blue channel. Contrary to what kwamikagami said, it seems NASA will continue to release images processed in the same manner as the first one (“unprocessed”), however they will also release more heavily processed images that emphasize land more like the Elektro-L photo.

I’d like to propose two ideas for how to choose the ideal banner image from DSCOVR:

1. A photo taken in mid to late September because the equinox occurs on September 23 this year. The Earth’s axis will be tilted neither towards the sun (as it is now) nor away from the sun (as it will be in the winter) but rather tilted 23 degrees to the left of our perspective so that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres will be equally represented in the photo. This is ideal because it maximizes our ability to see the entirety of the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Notice how this first photo from DSCOVR is emphasizing North America, it’s because it’s currently summer in the Northern Hemisphere (the Northern Hemisphere is angled towards the sun/camera) and therefore the camera is capturing less of the Southern Hemisphere. I really hope NASA times the photos well, because with Earth positioned similar to how it is in the Elektro-L photo with the Southern tip of India near the center of the photo it will now be possible to see even much more of Earth: the entirety of Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, half of Antartica and the North Pole. All of the Earth’s Oceans will be at least partly visible in the photo as well.

2. The alternative idea is to have the Earth banner image update every two hours to reflect our planet as it appears most recently (perhaps this idea is too bold, but it would be amazing).

There will be lots of stunning images flowing in from DSCOVR soon. There will even be images that juxtapose the Moon passing the Earth which will look amazing, but perhaps not most appropriate for the Earth banner image.--Cinemologist (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Kwami found a blog post where it is discussed that only this first image was processed with verisimilitude in mind, and that future images will be processed for scientific utility rather than realistic appearance. The reception this one has gotten may make them backpedal on that a bit, but I haven't seen any indication of that so far. We should definitely keep it in mind when considering future DSCOVR images. A2soup (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Miles?

Why no english measurements in (parentheses)??? Msjayhawk (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Where specifically? Some sections have a lot of conversions, but other parts, such as in the infobox don't, for what I think are good reasons - scientific measurements that are only ever made in SI units. Mikenorton (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

How Fast Is The Earth Traveling Through The Universe?

QUESTION: How Fast Is The Earth Traveling Through The Universe?

Seems one possible suggested Answer (see below) could be better.

Copied from the "Earth" article

Suggested Answer:

"The Earth is moving through the universe at 2,976,000 km/h (1,849,000 mph)."

References

A Better Answer - with Reliable Reference(s) - would be Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - Besides the Answer presented above, there are several other possible Answers - as follows:

• 1. Another Answer gives the speed the Earth is traveling through the universe as follows => 4,383,610 km/h (2,723,850 mph).
• 2. Another Answer is as follows => 3,079,938 km/h (1,913,785 mph)
• 3. Another Answer - seems related - but less clear?

There may be better Answers - with better References - Comments Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not with the sources, but rather with the fact that the speed of the Earth "through the Universe" is not really a clearly-defined or relevant statistic.

Motion is relative. To say how fast something is moving, you have to define a fixed coordinate system (based on some point or points of reference) for it to be moving relative to. "The Universe" as a whole does not have such a point of reference. The first source provided discusses measuring the motion of galaxies relative to the cosmic background radiation. As the source makes clear, however, this is not meant to determine speed "through the Universe" (whatever that means), but rather as a method to compare the relative motions of many galaxies without arbitrarily designating a single galaxy as fixed. Ultimately, I'm just not sure that motion on this scale is relevant to an article on the Earth-- it is galaxy-level motion and tells us something about galaxies or galaxy clusters, but not much about the Earth. The Earth's rotational speed and orbital speed around the sun are more relevant measures of how the Earth moves through space. A2soup (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@A2soup: Thank you *very much* for your *Excellent* comments - and clarifying relative motion in this instance - by coincidence - your comments seem *very* consistent with a response to one of my NYT comments not long ago re the first landing on a comet by the Rosetta mission - if interested, see my comment (and the response) here - in any case - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Spherical Earth

I would be glad to see a not off-topic explanation about the reverts please??--Evropariver (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't revert, but to me the sources look dubious. See WP:QUESTIONABLE. Praemonitus (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

sources of Earth's internal heat

Quoting the article,

Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%) and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%).

The citation for that is as follows:

Turcotte, D. L.; Schubert, G. (2002). "4". Geodynamics (2 ed.). Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 136–37. ISBN 978-0-521-66624-4.

Here's an article that's suggesting different numbers:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat

That article suggests that it's 50% planetary accretion, 50% radioactive decay. And that article is dated 2011 vs 2002. Should the article be updated with the new source? TerraFrost (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The latter is using a new (and interesting) source of data, so an update seems appropriate. They also state that they are uncertain about the source of the non-radioactive heat. Praemonitus (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. However, this new data shouldn't replace the 2002 data, but should compliment it as an alternate solution. Also, if added, make sure to use (and cite) the actual research paper with its more precise figures. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Tracking that amount of information may be too much detail at the summary level of this article. Praemonitus (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, without a split-off article on the Earth's internal heat, it has nowhere to go but here. There is a stubby paragraph about heat somewhat misplaced at the end of Structure of the Earth#Core that could be expanded into a section to hold this info. Alternatively, we could put it at Geothermal gradient#Heat sources and list that section as a see also on the section here. A2soup (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If the theory is still in flux, perhaps this article could just say something broad like: "As much as 50% of the the thermal energy at the core is supplied by radiogenic sources; the remainder comes from heat left over from accretion, or from other sources." That will leave some wiggle room. Praemonitus (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Culture section

The culture section is a great place to retain the Blue Marble photo. I was thanked for my efforts to clean it up, but was reverted because I removed some sourced info. But the sourced info I removed was inappropriate. First of all, the previous version was garbled, with statements mixed randomly in no coherent order and the introductory sentence placed last. Secondly, it was a blatant violation of BIAS, as the only religions it mentioned were fundamentalist Protestatism and Islam. If we're going to mention religions, we should do them all. (As I mentioned above, Gaia isn't really notable either except as an example of the third transformation of our conception of the Earth.)

The current organization is as follows: (1) the astronomical symbol, (2) mythological and religious views, (3) scientific transformations of our view, culminating in the photo gallery. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edits constituted a complete rewrite of the section, leaving it unsourced and with a lot of errors in the reference section. I'm dissatisfied with this effort and believe the original, frequently reviewed content should be restored until a new version can be agreed upon. Praemonitus (talk)

They weren't a complete rewrite. For the most part, they were simply a rearrangement of the previous text into something a bit more coherent. Ref tags are fine (though I notice you didn't bother tagging those claims when you edited the section), but gibberish shouldn't be restored. The main novelty is the overt claim that there were three major transformations in our understanding of the Earth, whereas previously that had only been implied. Each one is easy to ref, and I just kept the three transformations that previous editors had mentioned, but there might be others we could add, of which 'the Earth is ancient' is probably the most culturally transformative (at least in the West -- it's not a new idea to other cultures). I'd have no problem with refining the section, but the result should be intelligibly organized (there should be some logical organization to it) and should try to avoid ethnocentric bias, such as discussing e.g. fundamentalist Protestantism but not Hinduism. — kwami (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears then that the crux of your concern is with the following particular text:

A variety of religious groups, often associated with fundamentalist branches of Protestantism or Islam, assert that their interpretations of these creation myths in sacred texts are literal truth and should be considered alongside or replace conventional scientific accounts of the formation of Earth and the origin and development of life. Such assertions are opposed by the scientific community and by other religious groups. An example is the creation–evolution controversy.

I believe it useful to retain this information in some form if only to be 'comprehensive' about the major cultural elements, but I would have no problem with the removal of specific religions being mentioned. Praemonitus (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Why mention that at all? We note religious views. What's the point of saying that religions consider their views to be correct? Isn't that a given? And why single out creation myths, as opposed to religions that consider the Earth to be a mother goddess, or a dream of Brahma, or whatever? I object because including just them is culturally biased, but including all views would be too much for a simple summary, and they don't say anything the reader wouldn't understand anyway (religious people believe their religions are true). The details can be found in the main article.

What if we add a comment about the Earth being ancient, as that's the primary problem fundamentalism Protestantism has with geology in the West, and then mention something about a conflict between science and religion on these points? Any details -- those who still insist the Earth is flat, the Catholic church pardoning of Galileo for saying the Earth moves, Fundamentalists maintaining the Earth is 6,000 years old, etc. -- would be discussed in the main article. — kwami (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

But really, aren't we contrasting the two just by saying X are the religious views and Y are the scientific discoveries? It seems to be that elaborating how the two conflict is too much detail for such a short summary. After all, we don't bother to elaborate how religious views conflict with each other. A conflict between Islam and Hinduism is just as important in its context as a conflict between Protestantism and geology. All TMI. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The section is about culture, and while science has its role, one must argue that religion is more strongly relevant here than elsewhere in the article. It should not just be whitewashed out, as religion is a powerful element of culture. Right now I think the section is becoming too strongly biased in favor of the influence of the scientific viewpoint. Science consumes the remainder of the article, and you've now removed a paragraph of religious perspective in favor of still more science. This too is a biased viewpoint.

The section is in need of more information about religion, art, literature, and so forth. Mention of the various topics you bring up would also be fine by me. They would be appropriate for the Earth in culture article, after which they can be summarized here. The creationism conflict is a topical example of the influence of the Earth upon culture, and so I think it needs to be represented in some form. Praemonitus (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two main influences in our cultural perspective: religion and science, one paragraph each. The science paragraph is not about the scientific perspective of the Earth, but of how that has affected the cultural perspective. The Apollo photos had a far greater cultural effect than the theory of tectonics, though they have far less scientific value. And the four points mentioned have all had a strong impact on religion. Expanding the paragraph on religion would be fine. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than myself might be able to do that without favoring one religious perspective over another. — kwami (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - I *entirely* agree with the comments by Kwami above - and with the "text currently presented" in the "Earth#Cultural and historical viewpoint" section of the "Earth" article - this text seems excellent - and sufficient imo atm - more text can be presented in the main "Earth in culture" article if more is needed I would think - iac - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the addition about the discovery of the geological age of the Earth because it currently asserts nothing about it being culturally transformative. All it shows is a factoid about science history. Praemonitus (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Then why would you want to keep the same point in the bit about fundamentalists arguing over the age of the Earth? It clearly is transformative, but I object to your insistent ethnocentrism -- fundamentalist Christianity is not the world's religion. Although such a biased perspective is not appropriate in any article, it is especially ironic in an article about the entire planet. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The fundamentalists viewpoint differs from the scientific perspective, making it a relevant cultural dispute. Your addition makes no such claim. So why was the discovery transformative? Please explain what you are trying to assert there. If you can't explain it in cultural terms, then it has no relevance. (Yes I already know the history and why it was considered important.)

Looking at that science-focused paragraph again, almost all of the "culturally transformative" discoveries are from a western perspective. I think that true as well with the cultural impact of the geological age of the Earth. Why isn't that presenting a biased perspective? Praemonitus (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Except for the age of the Earth, which maybe should go, the others were transformative to everyone. The idea that the Earth is round was not prefigured in religion. Neither AFAIK was the idea that the Earth goes around the Sun. And actually seeing the Earth as a planet is amazing to everyone. — kwami (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is even possible to prove that they were transformative to everybody, so we can't assert that. We will probably be able to show that they were transformative to those who had strongly differing views, because that naturally creates cultural discord. Hence they represent a likely perspective regarding a minority of the world population−a few countries in Europe. Praemonitus (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Personification of the Earth as a deity

Earth has often been personified as a deity.

According to the Encyclopedia of World Religions, "Though from earliest times heaven was believed to be the residence of a high being or a prominently god, the earth as a personified entity is much rarer; it probably first occurred among archaic agrarian civilizations, and still does in some primitive societies...". This appears to conflict with the above statement. The earth-mother concept is strongly associated with neo-paganism,[1] and I have to wonder if this is the source of some of the wording of the paragraph. In mythology there are any number of mother goddesses, but fewer that are actually associated with the physical Earth—the Earth Mother. Praemonitus (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. — kwami (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

(and Terra in some works of science fiction) does not work well . . .

and Terra in some works of science fiction) in partial reference to science fiction, by that description is not professional editing. The name Terra in science fiction comes from pre-informed reference as a Latin scientific name. If Terra is used in the informative sense as (and Terra in Latin scientific), then those that read it here are thus informed that it is in use in certain fictions.

Terra is not currently used in science except in compounds, but I agree that we need to clarify that the word is Latin. I've done that. Dbfirs 16:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Change the infobox image to the better DSCOVR image...

8. "Earth-2015-Africa"

Is it possible we can change the infobox image to this DSCOVR image of Earth instead? I honestly don't know why the America-centric view of Earth from DSCOVR was plucked and the African-centric view not even discussed. The America-centric one is inferior because:

• The continents are easier to observe in the Africa-centric image, as opposed to the America-centric image, where one would have difficulty even seeing the landmass in the image at 300px, especially if one isn't skilled in geography.

• There's a lot more identifiable features and land types, such as forest, desert, seas, oceans, islands and more in the Africa-centric view than the America-centric one, where only oceans and clouds are visible, if one can't perceive where the landmass in the image is. Even if one can, there's hardly anything identifiable because of the lack of color difference.

• Because of such, the Africa-centric view is more representative of Earth, and thus would be better suited for use in the infobox than the American-centric view, which is less recognisable and less representative.

• It's a high-quality PNG file, unlike the JPG being used currently; the Africa-centric view looks more smooth and clean as opposed the JPG American-centric view which looks rather sharp, especially with the vast amount of clouds in the image.

This image is simply far better as a photograph of Earth than the one being currently used in the infobox. It should replace it. Philip Terry Graham 05:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. --JorisvS (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for the comments - yes - I agree as well - the infobox image has been updated from the old image to the new image (although, afaik atm, png may have more raster rendering issues than jpg?) - *entirely* ok w/ me to rv/mv/ce the edit of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC).

It is also rather land-centric. I do not have the capability to search with ease on my current device, but are there any non land-centered images available? Most of Earth is covered in water, yet this image is Africa/Middle East/Eurocentric. I'm doubtful that there are any images centered anywhere but on land, but if there is a chance, it may be worth checking. Dustin (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That may be true, but it is also important for the main image of the article to be instantly recognizable. The image as it stands easily satisfies that, while some vague image of open water probably wouldn't. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good point. I can't say that Africa is any better than North America as a "center", and I don't think either satisfies some quest to avoid being self-centric. I expect it's futile (therefore silly) to try that. But I agree that a good bit of continental coastline (at least) would make it crystal clear that the image is of Earth, and that truly is central. It doesn't matter to me if it's Antarctica, as long as it says "Earth". The other qualities of the image are more important than the continent that is shown. Just my opinion. Evensteven (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Just as a side note, Evensteven, for the reason as to why an image of the Earth centered on Eastern Africa is any better than North America—or Asia, Australia and Europe for that matter—is because humankind originated from that region. We are all Africans... -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 15:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not to be snide, but in my opinion: rubbish. I am not African any more than I am European (though my ancestors were European). And while the origin of humankind is a matter of some discussion, I am not one of those who objects to the thought that God's manner of creating him may have involved an emergence from Africa along the lines often described scientifically. (Whatever any person's starting perspective, it is rather human to presuppose that one knows more than one really does. The commonly-heard "Biblical" objections are not Orthodox interpretations.)

But that entire topic is about humanity (and its origin), not about Earth, which in my opinion renders Africa a side note in context. Indeed, the same is true of any continent, except that a coastline does serve to make Earth the more recognizable as Earth. Although, thinking again, doesn't an ocean do the same? (At least until we discover another world that has one that's not frozen over?) But that point didn't strike me so hard at first, and I doubt it would occur to everybody. We are too land-based for that.

So I'm saying basically that the Africa preference is limited to those who wish to focus on a scientific detail, or perhaps also on some (I'm not saying you) who would wish to drive home the point that that is the detail we all should focus on (for there are science-based political activists just as there are "Bible"-based ones.) My preference would be for neutrality from any of the "correctness" doctrines (so aggressive in self-promotion), in an effort to focus simply upon the Earth itself. I dislike the fact that there is so much contention in the world over disputes like that, that I am forced to take such a position. But given current circumstances, we should not ignore the fact that such issues will be very active in the minds of some readers, because if they boil over, the "discussions" will certainly be anything but rational. Let there be peace on Earth. Evensteven (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely, whether Neil Armstrong's "giant leap for mankind" referred to a trip from the Kennedy Space Center to the Near side of the Moon, or to humankind emerging from the African savanna to exploring outer space for the first time, is not only relevant to those who focus on a scientific detail: it's a rather profound philosophical statement beautifully represented by The Blue Marble -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 23:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it is. And Armstrong's quote works for me both ways. Giant leaps, after all, serve to extend widely. Cheers! Evensteven (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Restoring back the previous, long-term image

Earth - banner image candidates

Apollo 17
film camera, proper color spectrum

DSCOVR
a composite of 3 narrowband filter images

The current image of the Earth we're using doesn't have a significant encyclopedic value it should have in order to be placed as a main image of the planet. We have many better alternatives, including the previous one - The Earth seen from Apollo 17. So I would like to raise a notion of restoring it back.

Images from the DSCOVR satellite don't show natural colors. It's good for showing capabilities of this particular combination of sensor with selected 3 narrow-band filters out of 10 available for this particular satellite, but that's about it. Resulting image is oddly tinted towards red/yellow that significantly devalues it's value as an encyclopedic article considering that we do have much more color-accurate representations. Pretty much the only real advantage I can see for this photograph is the perspective - to simplify: at this distance you can actually see "more" of a globe than the satellites orbiting at the lower altitudes do. Everything else speaks against it (resolution, sharpness, neutrality, historical value, color accuracy, spectrum, etc. etc.)

But what makes me even more amused in all of that is the fact that from what I see the first and a major reason for the original notion to change the image was because it was "NASA-centric", and then you voted to have it changed to an even more "NASA-centric" image than the previous one - Blue Marble could be considered neutral due to it's historic value, this one here is clearly "NASA-centric" as we have tons of different satellites shooting photographs of the Earth these days, so why pick the one specific to the latest NASA satellite? As far as I'm concerned: the outcome of this change is the opposite of original notion by BDS2006.

At a moment we have brown-ish mush in an infobox. It really should be fixed. SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I also would prefer a return of the Blue Marble, but I don't have a problem with the DSCOVR images. A2soup (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I also approve of SkywalkerPL's statements. The whole concept of an image being bad because it is "NASA-centric" is hilarious, especially since NASA is pretty much the only freely licensed source for such images, and they are certainly of the highest quality. As with A2soup, I too have no real problem with the DSCOVR images, but the historical value of Blue Marble makes it a much better fit in my opinion. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done - restored Earth image to original Apollo 17 image - due to highest votes, long-term use, historical significance and encyclopedic value - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thx Doc, I fully agree. The Blue Marble as one of the most iconic, and among the most widely distributed images in human history is definitely to be preferred. It may become dated one day due to climate change, but that's something for future generations of wikipedians to worry about. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 15:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I just dislike that we're putting up a photo of what the Earth looked like in 1972. Like humans haven't been able to take an okay photo since then, or like Wikipedia doesn't have access to current photographs so we have to show something that predates the Internet. Wikipedia should try to be present and updated, and always have as new images as possible. What was the problem with this file?--ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's the Earth. There's nothing recognizable that changed since '70s and you could see on this photograph. No new impact craters, no new oceans, etc. etc. ;). Wikipedia does have an access to other photographs of the planet, and users can find them under appropriate link available in the article. As for what's the problem with file you linked to - I would direct you to a section above for a good beginning, but it also suffers from the same problems I described above, though to a lesser extend. Also remember that it's not the first newer photograph of the Earth published by NASA, yet this article survived all of them - that happened for a set of good reasons, most of which were already pointed out in the talk section.

If you really feel that article is missing something from not having one of these two photographs from DSCOVR satellite - feel free to add the image with an appropriate caption to the article content. I don't think there's any reason not to have a few different photographs of the earth in the article content. And it might be an interesting addition considering that this very specific photograph you linked to shows (basically) the opposite side of Earth to the one seen on Apollo 17 photograph. SkywalkerPL (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Blue Marble photo is historically significant but this is the Earth article, not the Apollo missions article. Our collective consciousness is accustomed to an early 1970s representation of the Earth, but that's not a logical argument for selecting the Blue Marble. NASA is to blame for its poor artistry and several decades of releasing botched images of Earth masquerading as true photos, because the public at large has become insurmountably confused about what our very own planet looks like. We of course know what our Moon looks like, it's the ability to see our own planet that is most amazing, like when a child first sees himself in the mirror, yet the Apollo missions led by genius scientists (not artistic geniuses) brought us to the moon without ever caring to look back at ourselves. The Blue Marble photo is an accidental photograph for which after a lab technician who processed the photo saw Earth for the very first time (like the child seeing himself in the mirror) every scientist wanted to take credit for this artistic yet accidental achievement, an achievement that grew to be greater than the act of walking on the Moon. Every scientist aboard the Apollo 17 wanted credit for taking that photo, yet nobody even remembers taking the photo--that is NASA's artistic capabilities in a nutshell. Now on to DSCOVR, why do we finally have a real view of our planet, for the first time since Apollo 17, for the first time in 43 years? Did NASA learn any lessons from the Blue Marble about the public's interest in seeing itself in the mirror? Indeed, NASA learned but they misunderstood. Over a period of four decades they released many new images of our Earth, proudly but confusingly titling them "Blue Marble" or sometimes less confusingly but more deceptively "Blue Marble Update" when in fact all these images were not photos but rather computer generated by technicians more fascinated by the Earth from a scientific perspective than caring to depict our planet as it actually appears to the human eye. NASA even took us to Pluto, 5 billion miles distant, before giving us a proper view of our own Earth and bragging that it's "one million miles away." Thankfully, we now have DSCOVR, not because NASA finally understands that photographs are powerful, not just useful, but because in the 1990s Vice President Al Gore had the Apollo 17 Blue Marble photograph hanging on his wall and because he plead with NASA to give us a view of our planet once again. Ultimately, like every NASA mission, DSCOVR is a scientific one, however it includes the artistic origins of Al Gore's vision for the clearest, most beautiful view of our planet, and that they have certainly achieved. With DSCOVR, it is as if we have finally discovered a planet with intelligent life and that planet is Earth. We have images of our planet that are true photos capturing the most accurate colors ever of our planet. After over four decades of distorted images of our Earth and endlessly retouched/recolored versions of the Blue Marble, we have gotten so used to the fake being real that the real has become fake. Earth looks alien to us and that's because we're seeing our planet for the first time like never before. The original Apollo 17 "Blue Marble" photograph was shot on a special negative (SO-368) combined with a lens filter that deemphasized blue and caused other alterations to the image's colors. DSCOVR is meticulously color-calibrated, not "perfect" in the sense that it exactly matches human vision, whatever that even means, but still far more accurate than anything taken by anyone before. From a distance of approx. 930,000 miles we’ll be able to see almost 50% of the surface of the Earth. Let's remember that this discussion is for the Earth article. The subject of historical significance here should be the Earth itself, a planet billions of years in the making, not a photograph taken some 40 years ago. So, the real question is which photo most accurately and appropriately depicts the planet we live on?

I’d like to propose two ideas for how to choose the ideal banner image from DSCOVR:

1. A photo taken in mid to late September because the equinox occurs on September 23 this year. The Earth’s axis will be tilted neither towards the sun (as it is now) nor away from the sun (as it will be in the winter) but rather tilted 23 degrees to the left of our perspective so that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres will be equally represented in the photo. This is ideal because it maximizes our ability to see the entirety of the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Notice how this first photo from DSCOVR is emphasizing North America, it’s because it’s currently summer in the Northern Hemisphere (the Northern Hemisphere is angled towards the sun/camera) and therefore the camera is capturing less of the Southern Hemisphere. I really hope NASA times the photos well, because with Earth positioned similar to how it is in the Elektro-L photo with the Southern tip of India near the center of the photo it will now be possible to see even much more of Earth: the entirety of Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, half of Antartica and the North Pole. All of the Earth’s oceans will be at least partly visible in the photo as well.

2. The alternative idea is to have the Earth banner image update every two hours to reflect our planet as it appears most recently (perhaps this idea is too bold, but it would be amazing).--Cinemologist (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I've been able to gather, the DISCOVR image is a composite, and not in natural colour. Why is it more scientifically valid than the Blue Marble? Serendi^podous 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"The whole concept of an image being bad because it is "NASA-centric" is hilarious, especially since NASA is pretty much the only freely licensed source for such images, and they are certainly of the highest quality." —Huntster

Regardless of any scantily substantiated justifications Huntster has provided for fabricating copyright violations to censor a Wikimedia project to fulfill personal predilections (had the banner image deleted and effectively reinstated his preferred image against the wishes of the community at the time—a very clever coup that went unchallenged), his actions were hostile and were not made in the interest of human knowledge. User:INeverCry, the user who ultimately deleted the Elektro-L images, acted on the basis of misleading information in the deletion nomination page provided by none other than Huntster—the same user that has been staunch in his support for the Apollo 17 image on this talk page. And what a fortunate coincidence. INeverCry then suddenly went into retirement three hours later (after many years of prolific editing with Wikimedia) to never be heard from again. And a reversal of the deletion would certainly be blocked by Hunster, despite more direct evidence of free license for the images in question than is found for the vast majority of images hosted on Wikimedia Commons. He conveniently held content he didn't want on Wikipedia to an arbitrarily high standard to ensure it would be deleted while laughing with contempt at the unprecedented responses from Roscosmos affiliates who explicitly stated the Elektro-L images are "free and open data" with no restrictions on use. Now, every single image we are looking at on this talk page was captured by NASA and we can all thank Huntster for that.

The argument is a straw man, as I simply pointed out that the discussion was NASA-centric, which can be easily verified from a cursory examination of the archives. His claim that, "they are certainly of the highest quality" is not credible. Roscosmos images are 124 MP while the DSCOVR images are 3 MP. In other words, some non-NASA alternatives have 1.5 orders of magnitude more data. Furthermore, over 99.5% of all full-disk Earth images ever captured were not captured by NASA so that should give pause to anyone who is concerned about an objective, enlightened discussion of the subject. And the Apollo 17 image that he exhibits a clear bias for? It is technically unremarkable. Its redeeming value? But, of course, it's historic! If historical value is the criteria, why not use the first image of the Earth ever captured from space? Is it not "historic" that a satellite reached 1.5 million Km into space and—against all odds—captured clear images of the Earth after 17 years of political wrangling in the US Congress? DSCOVR is indeed a NASA project but the photos are inherently neutral (and quite spectacular). It is the meta-data—the arguments—that are biased. I accomplished my goal of catalyzing a serious and global discussion about the image that represents the Earth across multiple language editions of Wikipedia. Most of you challenged yourselves to think openly and objectively and I am elated by the intellectual exchange that ensued. I can rest assured that whichever image is ultimately selected to represent the Earth on the default reference for all knowledge will be chosen with a much richer understanding of the subject and a keen awareness of the alternatives and that gives me tremendous pride. Thanks to all who sincerely participated in this epic exchange! My mission here is complete. Over and out. --BDS2006 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Those are extraordinary accusations against me, BDS2006. You seem to believe I'm involved in some kind of conspiracy to keep a specific image in use here. "Defamatory"??? I'm not even sure how to respond to that, it's so over-the-top. Regarding the "highest quality" statement, I apologise if I was unclear, but I meant that of the available pool of freely licensed images, NASA images constitute the vast majority, and of those, I believe they are of the highest quality. It would be great if a broader range of Earth imagery was available for us to pick from, but the fact is that ESA, Roscosmos, private company, etc imagery is copyrighted by default. There is a reason why NASA imagery so dominates the image pool in use on Mediawiki websites, and it isn't because of someone's whim.

Yes, I've expressed my preference for Blue Marble, but, I don't ultimately care whether Blue Marble or a DSCOVR image or some other freely licensed image of Earth is used. My only interest is keeping non-free images out of Commons, and despite the communications back and forth with the agency controlling Elektro-L imagry (NTS OMZ), there is still zero evidence that the images are not copyrighted or at least available under a free license. Their wording only stated that the images were publicly available, which is not the same thing as being public domain (as in, released from copyright). That simply is not enough to be kept on Commons, where the "precautionary principle" is necessarily in effect. I've got no problem with the Elektro-L images, but until and unless there is actual evidence from an authorized source that they are freely licensed, then they have no place on Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a note, but I think INeverCry retires and unretires semi-frequently. I say this based off of what I've seen of the user (I have watchlisted the relevant user/user talk pages). Dustin (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Serendipodous What you've gathered is not correct. The EPIC camera on DSCOVR is capable of capturing 10 different wavelengths of the light spectrum ranging from ultraviolet to near infrared, meaning the EPIC is actually more versatile than consumer cameras in terms of spectral coverage. Consumer-grade cameras only capture visible light in three separate wavelengths, or channels: red, green, and blue. True-color simply refers to an image that is captured in color (red, green, blue). The separate color channels are combined to produce a final image. This is true of any camera from digital cameras (color filter arrays) to film-based cameras (emulsion layers). DSCOVR's EPIC is no different, except that it can also capture wavelengths outside of the visible light spectrum. The true-color photos of Earth taken by DSCOVR are also not to be confused with "composite images" because a composite image refers to an image that has been stitched together from hundreds or thousands of images, whereas DSCOVR simply snaps photos of the entire Earth in one shot. Finally, the reason DSCOVR is scientifically more valid than the Blue Marble photo is because it was specifically designed to capture Earth and to capture it in an optimal way, in terms of colors and composition but also in terms of a long-term mission that will continue to produce the best data (scientifically and artistically) and the clearest photos we have of our planet for years to come. Sadly, the original "Blue Marble" photo has been, on countless occasions, carelessly color-graded and further recolored in many horrendous ways that distort the colors even further than its chemically and mechanically troubled beginnings (SO-368). To put it as simply as possible, do you not see the color difference between the "Blue Marble" photo and the DSCOVR photos? I hope I answered your questions.--Cinemologist (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Could the Val template be changed to display gigayear or gyr?

Could the Val template be changed to display gigayear or gyr?

To be consistent with units used in the article?

The template Val seems to be displaying the wrong unit. The unit entry is Gyr for gigayear, but the display is Ga for giga annum. Thank you, --Jcardazzi (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Information comparing two hemispheres not allowed?

I moved information comparing the two hemispheres from the article Northern Hemisphere to this article. The change was deleted here and restored there!

Of course, we don't place non-WP:TOPIC material in other articles because it would then need to be maintained in both places (or multiple places. My favorite was the article Hoboken, New Jersey which once insisted that it's major airport was Kennedy International Airport!)

The paragraph was perfect for this article which contains information both hemispheres. Student7 (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I replied to this at Talk:Northern Hemisphere, where the same post was made. A2soup (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. Please continue discussion there. Evensteven (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the edits

Hello, Greetings, I would like to know whether I can edit this page with this information and with this reference.If yes pls guide me Earths magnetic north pole is moving northward at a rate of 10 miles per year.

Anjali das gupta (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Why not read Earth's magnetic field first and work your way up, before starting to edit the parent article Earth with this topic? Rfassbind – talk 17:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Age of Earth: Recalculated

Guess what? Earth is 6k years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoTrack (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is, if k ≈ 7.6 × 10⁸. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

When 'The Earth' is searched in wiki search bar, it comes but we're not getting the option to edit it!