Talk:Neptune

The false color of haze used in a analog horror

so.. The logo of Gemini home entertainment used Neptune's image for some reason, is this used for uncanny vibes or something else. Add it in neptune in fiction if you want Wikipedia editors. 177.125.174.216 (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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)