There are multiple reasons. The image is iconic, famous and is one of the few true photographic images of Earth. It has also been a featured image since November 2004. Other images may present more detail of the land masses, but they are generally composite or processed images. For some previous discussions see (1234567).
Q.
Why does the article not have mostly harmless as its short description or otherwise summarize the article's content using it?
A.
This has been discussed several times including (12345). The consensus is that it fails WP:42.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
Complaints about the lack of young Earth creationism or similar points of view are inappropriate content for this talk page. For an overview of Wikipedia's position on creationism or young Earth-related topics, please see the FAQ at Talk:Evolution.
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 76 million views since December 2007.
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."?
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)[reply]
Haven't we discussed this before? My understanding is we use the calibrated version because it is itself the most representative version, and therefore appropriate to represent Earth to an extent a calibrated photo normally wouldn't beRemsense ‥ 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)[reply]
Hi there, just a question of clarification since I saw the photos get changed. Is the remaster of Blue Marble less accurate than the original? CherrySoda (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense, what? I'm absolutely shocked that Wikipedia can be so bureaucratic, to the point of blinding themselves with their conviction. It is not certain that the original Blue Marble picture has a more accurate than the recalibrated picture. That's because back then, NASA doesn't care about the true color of planets.
If you have taken a second to look at the description of File:The Blue Marble (remastered).jpg, there is a note that said "The end of most film magazines used on the Apollo missions include a photograph, presumably taken on earth, of a "KODAK Color Control Patch" on a chart containing mission and camera data. This color chart was used to calibrate the above photograph to better approximate real-world colors." Although it might be better that the author linked this in the description, the author also uploaded File:The Blue Marble White Balancing.jpg and linked to the calibration chart he uses to recalibrate the image. This is not original research. This is just adjusting the raw values of a picture with a known reference point. WhatisMars (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the actual calibration work was original research, based on a synthesis of sources but coming to a conclusion not found in any of the sources. That is a pretty straightforward reading of the policy. Remsense ‥ 论21:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not wrong here, it's just that this is a very special case. Given that the image is so particular, the color grading amounts to a claim in itself; by having a given version we are making a positive claim that it is correct or authoritative, not merely a technical calculation. Remsense ‥ 论21:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are misrepresenting me. If you taken a look at the ISS video feed of the Earth, you can clearly see that the ocean doesn't have a deep blue color nor that the vegetation is a dark moss color. Here's two videos of Earth in space: from the ISS and from the Polaris Dawn mission. This might not be the best calibrated picture that we can make, but this is the most faithful to observations made by a regular camera. WhatisMars (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, I really do. Like I said, I do not dispute that the calibrated version is what it purports itself to be! It is closer to what the photographer saw with their eyes while capturing the photo. But we are making a claim when we present The Blue Marble specifically: we are using it because it is such an iconic image, which creates this conundrum contrasting with what we normally want to enforce for good reason with MOS:ASTRO. I wish NASA would tweet "hey, good job" about the calibration—that would make this much easier in my mind. I know how silly, particular, and missing-the-point all this probably sounds to you, so I appreciate you engaging with me in good faith about it. Remsense ‥ 论21:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate that you are writing your rationale in more detail rather than just handwaving policy pages to the reader, unlike most Wikipedians here. Still, I still disagree with you because the Kodak color chart is designed so that the original color image can be adjusted to the correct, faithful value. This is not a matter of "originality", this is a matter of correctness. In the past, it's virtually impossible to adjust a developed picture in the film so that it would match with the charts and plus this is not a priority of NASA at the time, but now, we have the means to do so. WhatisMars (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, saying that "NASA would tweet "hey, good job" about the calibration—that would make this much easier in my mind" does not mean that you making an attempt to avoid original research, it just means that you are lazily accepting what the authorities are saying what is true or not. NASA is not the authority about color calibration and they have a poor track record on keeping the planet's color accurate (see this pic for example, where the Sun is orange and Venus's atmosphere is gone). I suggest you to read this blog at [1] to understand why true color is important and why relying on space agencies might not be a good idea. WhatisMars (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! I am trying to avoid saying what is true to a considerable degree, as one of our core content policies is verifiability, not truth. It's a real pain much of the time, but it's often our only avenue for constructively building a tertiary knowledge source meant for everyone in the world. Remsense ‥ 论21:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that negates any of what I've said above, if you consider the actual reasons and don't defer to a summary checklist. I also think it's rather tendentious to insist on the inclusion of a color-corrected version alongside the original on The Blue Marble: this puts into focus a clear case where color correction is functionally OR and nothing more. Remsense ‥ 论01:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the whole "Natural History" section there are four artist's impressions. The "After formation" section is illustrated by the "orange dot", a speculative view of how the Earth looked in the Archaean. There is already another artist's impression of the Archaean in the "Origin of life and evolution" section. There used to be an image there of actual rocks that displayed just some of the evidence used by geologists to disentangle Earth's history, shown here,
The lead currently says "Earth is the third planet from the Sun and the only astronomical object known to harbor life. This is enabled by Earth being an ocean world..." The transition between the two sentences flows nicely, but it implies that we know that life can only exist on an ocean world. I think this misstates the current scientific understanding of this subject. T g7 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, I would say that it implies we only know for certain that life can exist on an ocean world, which certainly is the case. Remsense ‥ 论04:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the obvious difference that trees are alive, the other obvious difference is people have noticed how life on Earth was likely made possible by its oceans. Remsense ‥ 论03:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that life on Earth is made possible by the presence of water, instead of saying that it is made possible because of the presence of oceans? T g7 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To that, add, 'presence of *liquid water*' (unless you believe extremophiles could evolve on a steam-world). Beyond that, an excess of water relative to landmass is the condition that likely results in oceans. Given a lot lower water/land ratio, I don't see anything to prevent formation of a 'Minnesota planet', with minor land elevation differences, and studded with ponds and streams everywhere; or a mostly waterlogged, 'Bayou planet', covered with trees or vegetation almost everywhere, soaking in variable amounts of water, maybe some flattish continents here and there, but nowhere having enough water for the runoff to pool into oceans. Don't see why life couldn't arise in either of those situations: plenty of water, no oceans. Mathglot (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(@WhatisMars, would you mind specifically tagging the photos as A and B for convenience?)
I'll repeat my previous position briefly. To my knowledge, photo B is the most recognizable rendering of The Blue Marble, one of the most famous photographs in human history, by a significant margin. In my mind, this overrides our ordinary guideline to use a true color photograph as the primary image in the article lead for astronomical objects. Given the particularity of the photograph, in my mind the color correcting process used to create photo A strays uncomfortably close to original research; while the process is generally considered merely technical, the fact that The Blue Marble is a subject of discussion in its own right means to me that we should only reproduce versions of it previously published in reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论19:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added image C, and prefer it due to the lesser amount of cloud cover, leading to more recognizable continents at the scale likely to be used in the Infobox. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Tangential and unsure at present if I would prefer it in lead position, but wow that photograph is particularly gorgeous.) Remsense ‥ 论20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B (invited by the bot) It's more authentic and also has better differentiation. BTW, as someone with background in the field, arguing that a particular versions is "what they actually saw" is not a sound argument. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C (Following WP:RFC/SCI) I don't think being the most recognizable photo of earth necessarily makes B the most representative photo of Earth, though it would certainly be the lead image in some future Images of Earth article. C is more recent, shows more surface area vs cloud cover, and includes a far higher percentage of Earth's human population. Safrolic (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. For the following reasons:
That B is the "default", culturally significant version of The Blue Marble is irrelevant. What matters here is representing the object as closely as possible to what it actually looks like. I am aware that there is no such thing as a "true" photograph, but if A is arguably closer to what a human observer would experience than B, then A must be the preferred choice.
That said, A has the advantage over C of being a version of a culturally significant image; this is not a great advantage IMHO but it could flip the choice towards it.
The real problem of C is that it is somehow less representative. There is more sea than land on Earth, and A/B show this somehow better than C. Also Earth has a significant cloud cover; picking an image of Earth with low cloud cover in temperate regions could be misleading. All images show both tropical and polar regions, but A/B shows much better the polar ice cap of Antarctica, hinting better at the diversity of climates on Earth.
B>C>A - But don't we really need an image that just shows America? I mean, that's the only place that really matters, right? NickCT (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to be troubled by this argument being acceptable—keeping in mind a claim we are making here whether we find it important or not is "this is the representative version of The Blue Marble", one that is not verifiable in any reliable source—for claims made with images when it surely would not be for claims made with prose. Remsense ‥ 论03:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding, we are discussing which image best represents Earth and is to be used as the leading image in its article, not which image best represents The Blue Marble. We should thus use an image which most accurately represents Earth, and A is the best option by far. AstroChara (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think C is the better picture, in regard of recency, quality, and the orientation including more land while retaining a diverse cloud cover (also, it might be considered irrelevant but I think the fact that the blue marble picture has its own article is an argument for having a different one on this article). Choucas Bleutalkcontribs15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. As per cyclopia. Cultural significance is irrelevant when it comes to representing a celestial body, and in some cases it can also perpetuate misinformation, which I believe is something we want to avoid on Wikipedia.
B or C. I agree with User:Remsense. I will explain why I think version A should not be used.
Version B is the original "Blue Marble" photo. We are told that Version A was "color corrected." It is implied that state-of-the-art techniques were used on a decades-old photo to balance out the colors to provide an accurate version of the photo. This, it is implied, is what the Earth really looks like, to objective observers-- it is the natural appearance of the Earth.
The Wikipedia article on color correction is titled Color balance. Anyone who has played with the color sliders on a camera app on a phone knows that color correction can be a subjective process. Someone makes the decisions on how to do the color correction. Software is used, and different software may correct colors in different ways. What software was used on this photo of the Earth? What settings were used within the software? I am not saying we need to know the answers to these questions in order to include a photo on Wikipedia. Rather, I am pointing out that this color-corrected photo was produced by a person or people who made decisions about how to correct the colors. This color-corrected photo, to my knowledge, has not been vetted or approved by any outside organization. As such, this is likely WP:Original Research and, therefore, not appropriate for this article. As Remsense correctly pointed out, had NASA (or some other authoritative source) approved this color-corrected photo, we would be having a different conversation. But my understanding is that NASA did not approve it. So I think photo A should not be used. What do you think? T g7 (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B, the present page image, which shows land, sea, and clouds. Earth is not just land area, and 'B' highlights the various components and weather systems. 'A' is too manipulated (per above and its upload page), and 'C' would be better used on the Desertification page (decade by decade the land areas of Earth are becoming desert, this photo shows it well). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to amend my !vote to indicate a secondary preference, but you raise a good point that the framing chosen by C to maximize the amount of land visible is actually problematic, not advantageous here. Remsense ‥ 论23:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A or B. As said before, either A or B show more of the planet's variation. It also shows Antarctica which I think is quite important. I don't know what it is but C has a white spot on the centre which looks weird to me. ―Panamitsu(talk)23:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-1 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..jpg){kind=small}
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)
Not done: See WP:TRIVIA RudolfRed (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
A: Color-calibrated picture (view in article)
B: NASA picture
C: 2018 NASA image.jpg)
