Talk:Neptune

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2025

I request the infobox image will be updated to the image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neptune_accurate_colour.png. It is my, slightly more accurate colour image of Neptune. I also request it to be added to the list of the images about Neptune. Also use the British English colour word when saying its accurate colour. Sturm 1 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: Do you have any sources or corroborating information for why this version is "more accurate"? Remsense ‥ 论 19:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The present image has documentation of this kind on the file description page, and your version for example seems to represent empty space as gray instead of black, which seems an unintentional artifact of the process and makes me worry about the rigor behind what you did. Remsense ‥ 论 19:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. The image's contrast was lowered so much from the deep blue one that the blacks turned grey. I highened it a bit to make it more black, but with that level of contrast, it is impossible to get a true black background without using AI internet tools. And the image was created today, about 7 hours ago, and recently published as a part of my TPAC25 image collection (The Planets - accurate colour 2025 Special Edition). I have my blog and YouTube where I announced this, but with it being this new, not more sources have been created since I did this alone and not on behalf of an university or anything. Sturm 1 (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

We're not willing to take your (or any editor's) word for the veracity of these statements, unfortunately. I'm asking for citations to reliable sources that support the claims you are making for why the colors of your version are more accurate than those in the existing image. See the description page of the existing image for examples of what those citations may look like. Remsense ‥ 论 20:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid your assertion that "it is impossible to get true black" leads me to believe that your techniques here are extremely rudimentary, and does not inspire confidence in the work. Remsense ‥ 论 20:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, you can not really say on my behalf whether I was confident or not, but I was! But if you want, I CAN use an AI tool to replace the barely noticeable grey to true black. Sturm 1 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

"does not inspire confidence" refers to the confidence of others in your work, not your own. Remsense ‥ 论 20:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The confidence of others is not my concern. I made the image collection for informative purposes, but if you don't like it, not my problem you rely on less accurate information. Sturm 1 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It must be your concern, as Wikipedia operates according to consensus that content conforms to our policies on verifiability and no original research. Remsense ‥ 论 20:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The "corrobating information" might be this: I studied the colours of planets when making the TPAC25 images, and Neptune was described as a greenish-cyan colour, and I observed the 2023 image, and it does not have much greenish tint in it, and I checked some other sources and I came to the conclusion that my image is more accurate the way it is now. Sturm 1 (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

So, you've essentially guessed based on a general textual description? That clearly does not suffice. Remsense ‥ 论 20:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not your job to say on my behalf how, why, when and with what confidence did I create it. It is my job to do that.

And there is more than what I have said in these texts, but I will not reveal them because they are sensitive information. The guess happened on texts, images, videos etc. I also checked some telescope videos. Sturm 1 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It's my job to ensure Wikipedia doesn't publish WP:original research or basic factual errors. Make whatever you want, but we will not publish it unless you can actually defend your claims and establish consensus for them. Remsense ‥ 论 20:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

OK then. Well I will have to thank you for being dedicated to Wikipedia, but have a good day. I am not concerned in who will use it. Sturm 1 (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Verifiability is a core content policy, so if your sources are private for whatever reason, they are not verifiable by readers and therefore clearly cannot be cited. Remsense ‥ 论 20:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I can get public sources, but I doubt I want to my image to be used in English Wikipedia even when it meets "the criteria", as I changed my mind based on this debate. Sturm 1 (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Well I have to concur that a true colour image from a professional source is preferable, particularly for the lead image. Otherwise we'll get into endless debates about what image is more accurate (which we seem to anyway, but going with the reputable source lessens it to a degree). Praemonitus (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I would like to leave my input here regarding this. From my research it does seem to be the case that Sturm's image is a far more accurate visual representation of Neptune than the currently used one, I am left believing that as it currently stands, it is in violation of WP:NOR to add it. If it gets picked up by a news source though, it would certainly be worth reviewing making use of it on Wikipedia. Heyimastopsign (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, what research? I'm not opposed to adjusting the grading of the photo, but we need actual sources. I don't know what you mean when you say the present photo is OR, it was pretty clear to me how it worked from the paper it cites.Remsense ‥ 论 19:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Please fix this sentence

“Neptune is slightly more massive [than Uranus], but denser and smaller.”

The sentence contradicts itself, and Neptune is in fact smaller than Uranus. Ahumanfromspace (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Where's the contradiction? It says that Neptune has greater mass than Uranus, but smaller volume. Double sharp (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The image of Earth and Neptune size comparison is not enough accurate

[Issue originally noted in this Reddit post]

Per https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.html, the ratio of Earth and Neptune's equatorial radius should be 3.883. However the ratio in the current image is at most 3.65, which is an notable error. 七战功成 15:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I've reconstructed the image and uploaded it as a file revision to Commons. Is that good? Remsense ‥ 论 15:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I measured it with the ruler function on iPhone. The equatorial diameter of the Earth is about 1.3 cm and Neptune is about 5, so the ratio is about 3.846. Is this the same as your measurement? By the way, the two were stretched a little further than previous version. I think it would be better if they are closer. 七战功成 (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Earth is 259 pixels across, and Neptune is 1006 pixels across: $1006/259\approx 3.8841...$ This is the best that can be done, with the bottleneck being the resolution of the original Neptune photo. Remsense ‥ 论 16:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, this should be the best. Now you can replace the previous one in the article.七战功成 (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

By the way, It seems that the image of Neptune had some portion of Neptune’s rightmost part covered in darkness. Maybe we need to consider and count them. 七战功成 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Right! With that also in mind Earth could be one pixel bigger maybe, but maybe not. Remsense ‥ 论 16:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I uploaded it as a revision to Commons, so it should replace the previous once you clear your cache. Remsense ‥ 论 16:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s strange that the image displayed on the main page of the article is still the original version, but when I got into the file page it shows the current one. I refreshed the page several times and even exited safari and reopened it, but it’s still the same. zhehan 七战功成 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It's there, and should reflect for readers when the cache is cleared, don't worry. Remsense ‥ 论 16:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so it would take sometime for the cache to be cleared to show the new version on the main page? zhehan 七战功成 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Or you can google how to clear it immediately for Safari, should be one or two clicks. Remsense ‥ 论 16:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it works. Thanks zhehan 七战功成 (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@七战功成 thanks for letting us know! If any other important diagrams have flaws or could be improved generally, let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 16:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am relatively interested in this aspect. I will leave messages in talk pages or other related places if I find similar issues. zhehan 七战功成 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually when I checked the ratio, I just stumbled on this page (https://fineartamerica.com/featured/earth-compared-to-neptune-mark-garlickscience-photo-library.html). It looks really good and and the ratio is accurate. (It also has the size comparisons of other three giant planets and the Earth). zhehan 七战功成 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Wait, error was introduced because I didn't check to ensure the original Neptune photo was vertically centered. (Why should I?). Neptune is 1012 pixels across, and Earth is now 261, ergo $1012/261=3.892...$ , again the best I can do without losing resolution. Uploaded the tweak, where I nudged them closer together while I was at it. Remsense ‥ 论 16:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I saw it. This is good enough. Thanks for your effort. By the way, my previous two replies had a strange word “zhehan” at the end somehow. I already deleted them. Hopefully they didn’t cause any confusion. zhehan 七战功成 (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I assumed that was your signature, ha. Remsense ‥ 论 16:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I just forgot. zhehan 七战功成 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)