Talk:Gliese 667 Cc/Archive 1

The controversy
I'm officially calling this a controversy. 1 Person is uncomfortable using this image because it it misleading. There are a few things to note here there are tens if not hundreds of images of speculation on exoplanets on Wikipedia nevermind the internet and everyone is ok with it and one day one person is thinking we are brainwashing people, misleading them with these images and goes around the wiki taking them off.

Facts
1. we always call the images Artist's impression unless they are true. 2. people are not stupid they know when things are just representations or fact. 3. everyone uses them look at this scene in the ESOCast of episode 60 at 6:57. These are the people who discovered the planet and they are using it too! They never complained when we used their impression on Wikipedia so what is the point if they are going to use it no matter what one person says. 4. Again these images are everywhere try taking them all down on List of potentially habitable exoplanets you will surely start a fight there if you do this nonsense. 5. The person who wants them down is a nonsense person. - Yes I am making this new category of users. I've ran into people who wanted to get rid of every unconfirmed planet on this wiki because it is misleading and I called them nonsense other people got mad at them and they stopped I'm hoping the same happens here.

Stop please
Please stop I am angry, just leave everything alone here make your own planet wiki and have no images if that is what makes you happy. Just stop ruining this wiki. That is what this image nonsense is not preventing people to be mislead but to kill creativity and curiosity.

Davidbuddy9 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC) - The person who wants to save the faces of planets

The Response
Below is a response to your facts, point by point (though not in order).

3. The ESO has different goals and standards than Wikipedia. In addition to informing the public, they benefit from good PR and public excitement, which can lead to more funding. They therefore have a vested interest in publishing exciting images. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform it's readers with as much accurate information as possible. The image here conveys no accurate information, and indeed conveys a good deal of very probably inaccurate information.

4. Recently (July 7-8), I removed overly-speculative artist's impressions from the articles of every single exoplanet in Category:Exoplanets (but not its subcategories). This is the second of those removals to be reverted. The first revert was discussed here, and the reverter agreed to the removal.

5. This seems more like name-calling than a fact or argument.

1. and 2. These are substantive arguments. (Following counterargument adapted from this discussion, apologies for the length, but it deserves a thorough explanation.) I removed the lead image because I don't feel that being called an "artist's impression" stops the image from being misleading. Why? Because artist's impressions are normally used to depict features of a subject that are known or reasonably believed to be true, but for which no image is available. For instance, this image of Neaderthals reflects our knowledge that Neaderthals lived in groups, wore furs, made fire, lived in subarctic climates, co-existed with mammoths, etc, etc. The appearance of the Neaderthals themselves is speculative, but at least based on some evidence. They are shown as pale-skinned since they lived in Europe, their hair is unkempt because they had no precise cutting tools. So the image depicts many accurate features of Neanderthal life, and has a few speculative elements where necessary. That is how artist's impressions are usually (and responsibly) used.

The only things we know about Gliese 667 Cc's surface is that three "suns" would be visible from it. This image, however, depicts a red atmosphere with clouds, standing bodies of liquid, and liquid-carved canyons in a rocky crust. None of these features are evidenced to exist as they are depicted in this image-- they are all are completely imaginary. A reader accustomed to the normal use of artist's impressions, however, may understandably believe that we do know that at least some of these characteristics are as depicted, and that we are using an artist's impression to fill in the blanks or simply because exoplanets cannot be imaged in detail with current technology. But they would be misled, since all we know about Gliese 667 Cc's surface is that three "suns" are sometimes visible.

So what images are acceptable for use on non-imaged exoplanet articles? If a size estimate is available for the exoplanet, a size comparison that does not depict the appearance of the exoplanet is great. An artist's impression that conveys only the known information that the planet is spherical, such as this one, works fine. If the exoplanet has been studied and something about it is known, then I think it is okay to use a responsibly-captioned artist's impression that depicts the known feature with some speculative features where necessary. For example, KIC 12557548 is known to lose mass rapidly, and HD 189733 b is known to be blue. But if there are no known features, I think it is contrary to the usual use of artist's impressions and therefore misleading to use a detailed and entirely imaginary image of the exoplanet. A2soup (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sir leave the images alone. These images are speculative but that doesn't mean it has to be taken down. Its to give the reader a general Idea if we look at the images you see 3 stars are there 3 stars? Yes. Well what about the landscape? Well you see water and mountains in the background yes? Well lets look at PHL's data 84% similar composition to the Earth and the SPH is 64% What do these mean? This means that the planet will be similar to earth and as you do know Earth SPH is 72% and you can tell because 72% of the planets surface is water so it is likely that 64% of Gliese 667 Cc's surface could be water if it is not a gas giant so before you say the image is completely false look at how they looked at the stats and came up with an image that reflects those stats. Same with Kepler 22b's image It is likely to be a water world and the image reflects too so please just stop and leave everything alone. And If you want to take down images with speculative features please visit List of potentially habitable exoplanets and take those down first. Thank you. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyways since you think that being called artists impressions isn't good enough (it should be as the definition says that an artist's impression is what an artist thinks an object may look like) but I think I can make a solution that is a win win for both of is if we call it Speculative Artists Impressions would that help? The images don't deserve to be taken down because they have speculative details or as I see it 'too many details' can we meet in the middle? Bold the text something other than taking them down please. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that what an artist thinks an object looks like isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia unless it is based on information about what the object looks like. On Wikipedia, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate. Apart from the issue of relevance, I also feel (as argued above) that artist's impressions with many imagined details and few to no evidence-based features have the potential to be misleading.


 * As for the stats about Gliese 667 Cc that you cite, SPH is based only on temperature and says very little about the presence and nothing about the amount of liquid water on the planet's surface. A SPH close to 1 indicates that given atmospheric conditions similar to those on Earth, it is possible for liquid water to exist on the planet's surface. I'm not sure what PHL data you are looking at, but PHL information on this page says:


 * "There are many uncertainties in any estimate of the surface temperatures for Gliese 667C c, but if we assume a similar terrestrial atmosphere the mean temperatures might be around 85°F (~30°C), and probably uniform around the planet. However, if the planet has a much more massive atmosphere, temperatures could be higher and unfavorable for life. The bulk composition of Gliese 667C c is unknown because there are not measurements of its size, something necessary to calculate its density. It could be a rocky, ocean or even a gas planet. Only rocky or ocean planets could be habitable, therefore it needs to have a radius between about 1.7 and 2.2 Earth radii to be either."


 * I take that statement to confirm my concerns that the image being discussed here is extremely speculative. As a side note, I noticed that the PHL Habitable Exoplanets Catalog reference for Gliese 667 Cc does not give a radius, but for some reason their listings of it (on this list and in their comprehensive catalog) do give radius estimates, which appear to be unfounded. A2soup (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What I'm puzzled is that you gladly take this one down due to high speculation. But what about Kepler-22b's image of it being an oceanic world isn't that speculative too? Why haven't you take that one down? Or Gliese 581 d impression with a gas giant like atmosphere. Would you consider those too speculative for your standards too? We don't know in reality what either of these plants look like never mind their composition. So why haven't you taken those down too? I still see them "misleading" people all over the place. Here, here and here. So why haven't you taken those down if you are going to go through with cleansing Wikipedia from speculation?


 * I do eventually plan to take them all down, but I don't want to spend the time until I have had a few of the inevitable discussions about it and am reasonably sure that my reasoning holds up and no one will mass-revert me and waste all my time. So I arbitrarily started with all the articles in Category:Exoplanets, excluding its subcategories. Now I'm waiting to see and deal with the reaction to that action before wiping them all out. I also want to hone my standards for what images can stay before I remove all the images, as there are borderline cases, and which images are acceptable becomes more clear to me when I have to defend myself. A2soup (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Note that a discussion relevant to this topic has been started at WT:WikiProject Astronomy. —Alex (Ashill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 15:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gliese 667 Cc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130630214924/http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1328/eso1328a.pdf to http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1328/eso1328a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Planetbox usage
The image in the infobox should not be used as it does not follow the usage guide for the template:

This template is part of a group of templates that are used to display information about a specific extrasolar planet. Images of published planetary properties are preferred where available, especially when they are available from cited publications. ''' Artist's conception, regardless of the source, should be avoided. ''' Examples of acceptable images include * direct images, such as one used for GJ 758 b, in the rare cases where these are available; * output of a model that is integral to a cited paper, such as the image used in HD 80606 b; * user-generated images that clearly illustrate published properties, such as the size comparisons currently used in GJ 1214 b or Gliese 436 b.

My edits followed these guidelines but were revered by User:MarioProtIV. I'm opening discussion as to why ...

--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like if the discussion was held here, rather then on all of the other pages. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 11:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)