Talk:Earth

We need to add the new moon

As you may have heard, Earth has a second moon! It’s an asteroid that got close enough to Earth and it is currently orbiting, and it will for another couple of months. Someone needs to change the page to account for the moon. Whole Instance (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

True Gawkgawk30000 (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

These events happen semi-regularly (see Temporary satellite) and are therefore quite trivial and do not belong in this article. ArkHyena (it/its) 13:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:ArkHyena. Temporary moons happen all the times, and 2024PT5 is already mentioned in the article Claimed_moons_of_Earth linked from this article. There is no need to mention small asteroids beyond that which is already mentioned. Dhrm77 (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

OPPOSE Unnecessary. 120.16.78.95 (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

wdym new moon???????? ImNotGettingAUsernameOk101 (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 120.16.78.95 (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

i mean like i didn't know earth has a new moon lol ImNotGettingAUsernameOk101 (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

i mean like i didn't know earth has a new 2nd moon lol ImNotGettingAUsernameOk101 (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not a second moon, it is just a temporary moon. 120.16.78.95 (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

ahhh ok ImNotGettingAUsernameOk101 (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

"Blue and green planet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Blue and green 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 § Colour redirects to earth until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (u — c) 01:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"Planet of Water" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 (u — c) 01:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"Third planet" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 (u — c) 01:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Caption for main photo

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)

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 ‥ 论 23:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 ‥ 论 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 ‥ 论 02:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 ‥ 论 03:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 ‥ 论 21:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 ‥ 论 21:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 ‥ 论 21:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 ‥ 论 21:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ice-covered areas

Why are the areas covered by ice classified as land in this article? I reckon ice-covered areas should be considered water. I would like to challenge the geographical classification used in this article by stating the following facts:

1. Chemical composition: Ice is H2O, identical to liquid water.

2. Physical state: From a scientific perspective, ice is water in its solid state.

3. Hydrological cycle: Ice is a part of the water cycle, influencing ocean currents and sea levels. 120.16.78.95 (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It's what our sources do. Challenge denied. Remsense ‥ 论 05:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

COMMENT Those sources do not make sense. They should be classified as unreliable sources. 120.16.78.95 (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)