Notice: file_put_contents(): Write of 253616 bytes failed with errno=28 No space left on device in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php on line 36
Warning: http_response_code(): Cannot set response code - headers already sent (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 17
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 20 Talk:Earth - WikipediaJump to content
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).
Why does the article not have mostly harmless as its short description or otherwise summarize the article's content using it?
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 (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms 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.
Replacing the lead image with a one from Himawari 9
I feel that the current lead image, the Blue Marble, is a poor representation of Earth due the inaccurate colors, artifacts, and limitations of film of the time. I believe it should be replaced with the image shown from Himawari 9. It is newer, cleaner, higher resolution and, most importantly, has better color rendition. It also shows a wider variety of environments from deep oceans to tundras and so on. So should I replace the current lead image with this image from Himawari 9? Edits4019 (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support now that the proposed image's source link is fixed, but The Blue Marble should be kept somewhere on this page due to its importance. If there is no other place to move it to, then the image should not be replaced. ZergTwo (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m against this on the basis that The Blue Marble is an extremely iconic image. I do agree with the true colour problem, but the Himawari 9 image shows very little landmass and I think that’s something that should be emphasised. If another high quality true colour image can be used that also shows a good amount of land, then I think it makes sense to change it while keeping The Blue Marble somewhere on the page due to its cultural significance. As for "It also shows a wider variety of environments from deep oceans to tundras and so on," I don’t see any obvious macrobiodiversity in the Himawari 9 image that The Blue Marble doesn’t have. Nochos0 (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Blue Marble is an iconic image. Though much of the downsides of the photo mentioned in my first comment, primarily being that it doesn't really represent Earth as it really appears, should vastly outweigh any cultural significance. Especially for what is supposed to be a realistic representation of the planet Earth. As per the suggestions of other editors though, I will definitely try to find a spot to relocate the Blue Marble to since it is so significant.
> the Himawari 9 image shows very little landmass
70.8% of Earth's surface is covered in water, and I believe the Himawari image visually represents that well. It also shows enough land (such as Australia, Indonesia, east Asia) to show that Earth has land and oceans but not so much land to make a reader think that most of the Earth is covered primarily with land at first sight.
>I don’t see any obvious macrobiodiversity in the Himawari 9 image that The Blue Marble doesn’t have
I do agree at first glance you don't see much more macrobiodiversity than with the Blue Marble. I probably should have mentioned earlier that you'd be able to see those features when you click on the image and/or zoom in as readers will likely do. Edits4019 (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What macrobiodiversity is varied between the two images? TBM shows hot and cold deserts—both mostly unobscured by clouds—semitropical oceans, and a rainforest. Himawari 9 shows a hot desert, some temperate coastal regions, Pacific Ocean, and the Southeast Asian rainforest, the last of which is both in the corner and hidden by clouds. Both of those summaries are obviously very broad, but to me it seems like TBM shows more land diversity, something that is extremely crucial to any description of Earth, especially in image form. Nochos0 (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both do differ quite a bit, with the Himawari image being more diverse in my opinion. The Himawari image of course shows hot deserts in Australia, 2 cold deserts (Antarctica and Gobi), grasslands and rainforests. Though it also shows regions with shallow water, coral reefs, mountainous regions both in the Himalayas and the Southern Alps, volcanoes in southeast Asia, temperate rainforests, temperate forests, Taiga and Tundra way up north in Russia. Since the Blue Marble has poor color rendition and grainyness, it doesn't represent the regions it shows very well, making it a poor representation of Earth and its landmasses.
And outside of macrobiodiversity, lots of phenomena is found in the Himawari image that is not seen in the Blue Marble, such as wildfires, large thunderstorms, suspended sediment near coastal regions, suspended sediment from rivers, smog, sunglint, and effects of Rayleigh scattering. All of which are equally as important to include for an illustration of the Earth. Edits4019 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those phenomena are visible in this image nor any image of Earth. I can reply more fully in the morning but just pointing that out,. Nochos0 (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to "70.8% of Earth's surface is covered in water, and I believe the Himawari image visually represents that well." As far as I know there are several other planets that are theorised as likely waterworlds, such as in Kepler 138c and 138d. Earth being the only planet to have biodiversity at all should outweigh the emphasis of liquid water oceans, although that too is, of course, crucially important for life.
Himawari 9 shows much less of Antarctica, something that @Randy Kryn pointed out as well. The Gobi Desert is partially there, sure. Coral reefs and volcanoes aren't obviously distinguishable from space afaik, and if they are, can you point them out on the Himawari 9?
I hate to make this a pissing match, but Africa, the main eyecatcher of TBM, has several major elevated ranges such as the Albertine Rift and the Ethiopian Highlands. It also has equatorial rainforests, the Sahara Desert, cool temperate regions on the coast of Madagascar and South Africa, and even a red savannah desert in South Africa's Northern Cape province.
I definitely overreached by saying none of the phenomena were visible, lol...
> Wildfires and large thunderstorms can possibly be visible from satellites, but I see none in this photo.
> Suspended sediment from bodies of water is technically hardly visible with the naked eye, let alone from at minimum ~100 miles away.
> There is a sunglint, granted, which is much more obvious and defined than in TBM.
> I'm not sure where Rayleigh scattering fits in the image, but then again I know relatively little about astronomy and might be missing it.
The Blue Marble and Himawari 9 both do show a lot of qualities that the main image of Earth should have, but we should only focus on the things that are visible from space and obviously distinguishable, not things that one would need to infer based on geographical, biological, or climatological knowledge. Nochos0 (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An additional quote from MoS:IMAGES that I think encapsulates the ideal primary image: "An image of a white-tailed eagle is useless if the bird appears as a speck in the sky."Nochos0 (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not super picky about the main image, but my favorite image of Earth is EarthrisePhoto of the Earth taken from Apollo 8, called Earthrise (1968), mostly because it is not a composite image, and captures the lunar surface in the composition. While I don't think it would be ideal for the lede image, I'd like to see it included in the article if possible. I was thinking that it could be a good option for the "Earth–Moon system" section, but there is already an image "Earth and the Moon as seen from Mars by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter." Would inclusion of this be redundant, and if so would anyone mind changing the one taken from mars for Earthrise?
Oppose: the arguments used in favour are largely technical and reflect what we as specialists see. A layperson is likely to see an image of Australia with what looks like the reflection of a flash light in the centre of the image! Silica Cat (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a lot of concern among the land diversity of the image. I shuffled through Commons for some images that show the four main colors of Earth: green (vegetation), blue (ocean), brown (desert), and white (clouds; snow or ice).
Sorry, I wasn't available yesterday. The GOES images are false(ish) color, since the ABI imager does not have a green channel (filter). So a green channel has to be synthesized from some other three visible channels (red, blue, NIR). So the colors aren't what a typical camera would see in real-life and that means the colors look a bit odd especially with the Colorado plateau and the Atacama. Vegetation also looks too green IMO. Though I think it is better than the original Blue Marble that was here when the discussion started.
Then for the DSCOVR images, my only gripe is the perspective. Since it was taken from so far away, Earth looks a little compressed and unnatural. The colors certainly look a lot more natural though.
Honestly, I think we should go with the Meteosat-12 from further down in the discussion. Even though it does not include Antarctica, it does include Africa, Europe, and partially Asia. The perspective is also a lot more natural, being that it is also an image taken from GEO. Edits4019 (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the Meteosat-12 image too, although any of the Blue Marble images are also fine. As I said before, most people visiting the page will not notice the technical aspects, and whilst I appreciate accuracy is importance, the image needs the wow factor to draw people in. #ZergTwo I suggest the best way to get resolution on this issue is to replace the image and see how many people complain! Silica Cat (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus is still way too unclear to actually yield an answer. It seems to be a roughly even split of people saying to keep TBM and to find a superior image other than TBM or the original Himawari-9 suggestion. I still stand by keeping TBM, but if a newer image can be found that has a polar cap, reasonable macrobiodiversity, and no intrusive sunglint, then I think most people involved in this thread would back it, myself included. Phoeromones (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : The Himawari view is dominated by ocean with very little landmass, and the sunglint reflection across the water is pretty distracting. Yeah it does represent earth better I guess since it shows a lot more water volume than land but it also shows less diversity than the Blue Marble, which shows Africa, Antarctica, bits of Asia, deserts, rainforests, and highlands in a single image. If the image were ever to be replaced, I think this would be a better version of the Himawari-9 that was first shown: File:Earth in True Color from Himawari 9.png it shows the Indonesia archipelago which were covered by clouds, and given that the first image shown was centered around the west pacific, the Indonesian archipelago should be shown. It also doesn't have the sunglint reflection. Or this image is also good: File:Africa and Europe from a Million Miles Away.png it shows 3 continents, a lot of biomes, diversity, the poles, and also kind of shows earth on its axis, etc. A lot of what this article teaches about Earth is centered around those things so it's honestly the best choice if we were to switch. Well those were my thoughts, I still don't think it has to be changed though since it's iconic, historically significant, recognizable, and IMO it describes what Earth is pretty well. WhatADrag07 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: While perhaps the Himawari 9 is more realistic in colour, the Blue Marble shows more land diversity (from polar caps to rain forest to desert) and one of the major Earth continents; plus the ocean reflection on the Himawari 9 is quite distracting. I wonder if there are other good images from the same satellite? See the one I posted on the left here, it seems to me another interesting option. --cyclopiaspeak!10:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earth captured by Meteosat-12
Fair point on the sunglint problem. I might have a look around and see if I can find a better time and day in the past with less of the sunglint visible. Only thing I have against the image you present is that it does have atmospheric corrections, so it isn't quite realistic compared to what you'd see naturally in outer space.
I also have images in my collection from Meteosat-12, some of which I will be uploading soon. It shows much of the same landmasses as the Blue Marble except for most of Antarctica. Only concern I have about those from Meteosat, or any of the other geostationary satellites for that matter, is that that space is masked out. In other words, you can't see space or Earth's atmosphere. Edits4019 (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Meteosat image is amazing but I don't see it as superior to the Blue Marble, as it lacks a polar cap. However I'd prefer it to the Himawari 9 candidate proposed at the start of the thread. cyclopiaspeak!13:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is a new image at The Blue Marble which has been further colorized, so it doesn't look like an original image but worth considering since it's apparently replacing the historical The Blue Marble photo. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think your link is the first time I've seen that one, thanks. That really shows Antarctica well. [edit: I later remembered seeing it at the Blue Marble page and went back to check it out] Randy Kryn (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meant the color corrected Blue Marble that was found at The Blue Marble article before it replaced with the old scan again. I think that image or the color calibrated blue marble could be a suitable compromise since it's the same photo, but with vastly improved colors and way less clipping on bright clouds.
This is the image I meant, on the right, and it would be fine for the opening image of 'Earth'. But the problem is that the remastered image, as well as this one, are not really the original The Blue Marble which should be made clear in the caption although a link to The Blue Marble should be kept. Make sense? Randy Kryn (talk)
Or why don't we go for the gold and put this at the top. A little distracting but a good distracting. The reader, more often than not, comes here to learn about Earth. Well, here it is. Picture = 1000 words. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is both distracting and a poor representation. GIFs don’t really work well for lead images IMO, with a few exceptions. Nochos0 (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, kind of distracting (would be better if it were slowed down to 25% of that quick spin) but still educational in an overall way - mostly further information about how Earth's landmass is competing with Mars as the Solar System's most prominent desert planet. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Randy Kryn. The Blue Marble is iconic, yes, but in my opinion how iconic or recognizable a planet's infobox image is should be secondary to accuracy. ArkHyena (she/they) 19:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the specific suggested image (from Himawari 9), particularly due to the sunglint issue mentioned above, but I support changing away from The Blue Marble. I believe the Meteosat-12 image is the best candidate suggested in this discussion because it is high quality, free from greatly noticeable distortions (sunglint), has accurate colours, and shows a good variety of the planet. Seercat3160 (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article, I believe we include to many images, to the point it is a distraction. I would suggest an image gallery section for some, but think we might want to cut at least a third of them. The issue is particuarlly apparant using wide mode on some screens. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems that the webpage does not work well if you keep the text so tiny with respect to the size of your screen. I wouldn't say I'm surprised. I doubt the CSS etc. could work perfectly with any possible font size/screen size ratio. Did you ask at WP:VPT? cyclopiaspeak!10:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't the semi-major axis, perihelion and aphelion in km and not au? On most other astronomy pages its in au with sometimes km listed aswell in brackets. Xirosaturn (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The astronomical unit was traditionally defined as Earth's own semi-major axis. Earth's own orbit is also close to circular, so its perihelion and aphelion values are also close to the semi-major axis value—all three values are effectively 1. ArkHyena (she/they) 17:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-1 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
