Talk:Timeline of first images of Earth from space

Layout
Having the images at the bottom instead of next to the entries bothers me. Could we use a table with the rows having the the description and then the picture and the height of each row expand to that of the image? Would this look better? RJFJR (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed; meanwhile, I've restored the gallery that someone discarded -- who would think that images wouldn't matter in an article about images?! fgnievinski (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I just saw after merging the gallery into the list, that what I did (including the non-first but special images) is similar to the original structure. So I wonder now why the images were seperated out and also at one point deleted? PS: since the article originated not too long ago from the article Earth observation I raise the question if the article wouldnt be better called something like "Timeline/List of significant/famous images of Earth"? Or if the original porpuse of entrys like the Blue Marble fit better with the article Earth observation and has to be moved back (including the firsts) and this article is sustained afterall but realy just regarding the first image of Earth? I would argue for having a broader article about iconographic imaging and observation of Earth, this might even include first radio recordings, or drawings etc.. Nsae Comp (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the images should be a a type of table. Maybe a table more like the one on List of presidents of the United States ? Govvy (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the idea. --Deeday-UK (talk)


 * I've asked for help at Help_talk:Table. fgnievinski (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did this in the Portuguese Wikipedia (1). Erick Soares3 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I boldly updated the layout (1). What do you think, ? Erick Soares3 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well done, that's just what this article needed. I would tweak it further by removing the countries and flags (which are nigh on meaningless in an article discussing images of the whole planet, and indeed were not there before), and the question-mark-placeholders: they take up lots of space while adding no useful information. It is understood that some images are not available; an empty cell will do. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * thanks a lot for your work! on smartphones, the images look small, though. how about merging the refs into the event column? fgnievinski (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I think it may work, but I'm kind of busy now. Erick Soares3 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

the multi-column layout shows the images in tiny size on mobile devices, which is the vast majority of readers. fgnievinski (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * A one-column table doesn't show at all on mobile devices unless a reader expands the table. Readers only need to click on an image to get a closer look on mobile. A one-column table defeats the purpose of a table. Each item has five parts, which lends itself to the tabular layout. There are also several editors here that clearly support the table layout. Qono (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course, after expanding the table, it crums the images in a fifth of the available page width. The original support was to move from a plain list to a table "with the rows having the description and then the picture" -- no mention was made of several columns. There is no consensus for splitting the text content into separate columns for each of date, description, and references at all! fgnievinski (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is assumed that a table will have several columns; that's how a table is defined. @RJFJR, @Deeday-UK, @Govvy, and @Erick Soares3 all seem to support having this formatted as a table, based on their comments and edits, but I would rather have them speak for themselves regarding the change in formatting. Qono (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was kinda agreed for a table. As for the table, the images should to be in the second column, the detail, third column, the table, needs to be adjusted for more balanced formatting. There should be more to context, very basic at the moment. The lead paragraph, can we expand on that? Govvy (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave it another try, moving the images upfront (as it's the most important piece), then merging the three text columns (why split the date and references?!). fgnievinski (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I kinda liked the table with the two columns, that you did. Seemed neater to me. But whats with an entry without the image know? Seems... odd. Govvy (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@fgnievinski, @Qono, sorry that's a No vote from me: a Timeline table has to have time in the first colum, i.e. dates or years. The previous layout was much better, apart from the separate Ref column, which is unnecessary: references could go in the description column, after the text as usual. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've merged the references and description columns, as you've suggested. Now for what's most important to show upfront, this article started without "timeline", just as First images of Earth from space. I still think that giving images only 25% of the available width on a mobile device doesn't do justice to the images. fgnievinski (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the missing images in the article and in its talk page. fgnievinski (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @fgnievinski, this article as it was created almost got deleted. It was only allowed to stay after reshaping it as a timeline, so it should be formatted like any other timeline. You can't expect the images to be displayed in all their glory on a mobile phone; you can only expect thumbnails - and the ones I see on my Samsung Galaxy look perfectly adequate; the experience is quite similar to the desktop version. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I remember: you were the one who nominated this article for deletion, only to withdraw the nomination later after it got a single support vote. And now you have the face to say it "almost got deleted". If it were for you, this article would not exist anymore. I, instead, have created this article and added most of its content. So, if it gets down to voting, I hope the opinion of content creators gets more weight than that of deletionists. fgnievinski (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll rephrase that: this article risked getting deleted. I withdrew my nomination after other editors managed to make sense of the mess it was. For your information, more than once in the past I voted to keep articles (not created by me) that had been nominated for deletion. And no, your opinion does not count more than mine, or anyone else's for that matter. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with moving the references to be inserted after the text description (or any other statement that needs a reference) and not having a column dedicated to the references. It seems natural to have the images be in the first column, since images are the subject of the article, but I don't feel strongly. Qono (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion
What are the criteria for inclusion? Also, this list already goes as far as 2006, this is very arbitrary and surely we have a zillion other images from the last few decades. See also similar problem at Talk:Earth_in_culture Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * the inclusion criterion is "firsts" in terms of the conditions in which the image was taken. fgnievinski (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fgnievinski What reliable source is this criterion based on? The topic is probably notable (ex. source), but the criteria vary (if they can be found at all...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've counted 20 sources cited mentioning the word "first" in their title -- would that suffice? fgnievinski (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fgnievinski That's sufficient, although did you verify that each reference provided contains the claim of "first"? I've added two citation needed requests two two unreferenced claims/captions, and I'll note that one entry (November 24, 1969) does not make any claim of being a "first". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've fixed one of the two CNs. fgnievinski (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Possible Source for Image
Eric Burgess - Long-range ballistic missiles-Macmillan (1962). ''Figure 5-15. Separation of the re-entry body is checked by means of photographs of the action taken by cameras in the re-entry body. This series of photographs was taken on 12 May 1959 to check the separation of a Thor re-entry body. Incidental to the metric data obtained there is also pictorial data of the Earth photographed from high altitude. The first photograph in this seires was taken at an altitude of about 125 miles. The Atlantic Ocean and the Florida mainland are shown clearly on the later photographs. (Photo: U.S. Air Force)''