@A2soup: Just a suggestion. There are possible speculative images about objects that aren't necessarily "Exoplanets" But should fall under these rules too. So changing it from

Artist's impressions of exoplanets 

to:

Artist's impressions of exoplanets and other Extra-Solar Objects

should be considered. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, although to make it even more inclusive I would say that it should be called "Artist's impressions of astronomical objects". These guidelines seem like a good idea not just for exoplanets, but for astronomical objects in general, I think. Also, nice work on this; it gets to the heart of the matter by disallowing the speculative images while still allowing those in reliable sources. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree also, to "astronomical objects", and to the kudos for good work. Evensteven (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad you like it! I was actually planning to make it more general, but then (by chance) I ran across the editor-made artist's impressions at Life on Mars, which made me realize that the potential for good amateur artist's impressions goes way up when we know a lot about the astronomical object in question. Then again, the need for artist's impressions goes down when we have lots of information, so perhaps the images at Life on Mars are a unique case in that sense. If I see a little more support for generalizing the guideline and no reservations, I'll move and reword it. Thanks for the feedback. A2soup (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The move is done I just did it now. If you have any concerns let me know. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what everyone feels about this but I have some WIP's boxes used for warnings on pages as well as an info. The info one as I would imagine would be used on talk pages to indicate that the WP:IAR is in effect for the particular article.

Samples:

The following article violates rules set by the English Wikipedia Guideline Artist's impressions of astronomical objects and should be addressed immediately in a consensus form on the article's talkpage.

Artists impressions of astronomical objects in this article do not comply with the English Wikipedia Guideline Artist's impressions of astronomical objects and are protected by the English Wikipedia Policy Ignore all rules.

I have nothing much else to say so please give me some feedback. Also feel free to edit them especially the wording! -Davidbuddy9 (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the idea of tags for just this specific guideline. It seems likely to encourage tagging instead of fixing articles. I would rather that people just fixed the articles, especially since the fix in this case will be as easy as removing the image. Also, this would be a guideline rather than a policy. A2soup (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@A2soup:True but sometimes I tag stuff and them come back later to it when I have time. If I am short of time (aka on mobile) like the situation with HD 85512 b I didnt have time to rewrite a section so I tagged it. I get your point tho what about the last one? I will change policy to guide line just give me 5 minutes. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The tag you used on HD 85512 b, {{Update section}}, makes more sense because updating a section can be difficult for some editors. But removing an image takes 15 seconds and can be done by anyone anytime.

For the last one, I'm honestly not sure exactly what it means. Does it mean that even thought an artist's impression fails to meet this guideline, it should still be included? In that case, the appropriate course of action would probably be to discuss the image's suitability on the talk page if it is removed. I think tags are supposed to be used to indicate that changes should be made, not that changes should not be made. A2soup (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@A2soup:Yes the last one does mean that it should be included even though it fails to meet the guidelines. I actually find that the first tag could be useful for certain pages that need to have a discussion on this topic rather than an auto removal system. Such pages would be pages that lists planets and has an artists impression from each one without a caption (I cant remember the page but If I find it I will tag it). This is definity not for planetary pages but for pages that lists planets or a page that covers a category of planets. After a consensus is taken place on the talk page if it is chosen to ignore the rules the second tag should be used to prevent the issue to be resparked and should only be used on the talk page to keep the main page clean (i.e. same as if a page was previously up for deletion its tag will be on the talk page). That is my two cents and as I said the tags need to be reviewed and rewritten so feedback is certainly welcomed. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the second tag is a really bad idea, since it could be used to justify the inclusion of any artist's impression and sets a terrible precedent. As for the first, I agree with A2soup here; it takes just as much time to remove an image as it does to tag an article (since the tag obviously wouldn't go into Twinkle), so the tag just encourages editors to be lazy IMO (disclaimer: I'm against big block-level tags in general other than ones that tell a reader important information, since I think they just clutter up articles for no benefit). StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@A2soup:@StringTheory11:I disagree about the laziness part. Everyone here is thinking about using these for "Planetary Pages" which in that case is laziness (even though it would take more work to put a tag up than to remove an image). But there are other pages that would need to be completely overhauled to meet these new guidelines. That includes lists that use impressions for every listed planet (such as List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates as well as pages that explains and depicts hypothetical planet types. I would expect a section on this guideline/policy depicting when and where to use both of these tags to prevent confusions. I could write that up for everyone if you are interested as the point of the second tag is to prevent the same issues to be constantly reopened if the solution chosen was to ignore WP:AIAO. -Davidbuddy9 (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I count 11 images on List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates, which is not too hard to process. The main point, though, is just that it's a low-skill activity to judge reliable sources and remove images. I think the real utility of tags is when an editor has the skill to recognize a problem, but not the skill to fix it. I can't see how that situation would arise in this case. As for the second one, consensus is recorded and enforced in many other more difficult situations without tags noting the consensus. WP:NPOV is a very difficult issue, and yet you don't see tags saying "The current representation of viewpoints in this section has been judged as proportionate, please do not change it." Ultimately, such a tag can only serve as a damper on discussion, where editors point to the tag rather than arguing in defense of the prior consensus. A2soup (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@A2soup: Its not always "Low skill" as you may think it is. The whole table would have to be redone in this case. However I'm starting to agree with you that implementing notice boxes isn't a problem or something we should consider, the real problem is the backlash that people who constantly check the page and argue that there was no census for such a dramatic change. And you know know this from what happened with the Gliese 667 Cc page (lets not go to details with that though we should move on from it). This particular case on List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates seems to be a particularly dead page (with the exception of activity from me) so this should not be a problem in this case but it still important to point out that people living under rocks will attack us for enforcing guidelines without a discussion, which of course could be treated in a case-by-case basis. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree, and would add that if someone starts a discussion, it is important to engage them and explain the reasoning behind the guideline (which only serves to document consensus, after all) rather than use the guideline like a blunt instrument. This is all if the guideline ends up getting promoted at all, of course. A2soup (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine if anyone wishes to weigh in. Your input would be appreciated. Regards, nagualdesign 20:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Its is the last planet in the solar system. Its not the biggest nor smallest planet

But it does consist of the coldest temperature becourse it is furthest from the star (the sun), which makes it very cold and it may also be becourse of its gases atmostmosphere and it mostly made off gas it hasnt beem verified yet but it allegedly doesnt not consist of any living organisms or life force Bt allegedly there might be a other spices besides human beings in other galaxies far away which we have noy verified as yet Pretty Gebashe (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that the criteria for inclusion be augmented to be:

In general, an artist's impression of an astronomical object is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia only if a priori:

This will make it clear that it should be encyclopedic and informative, and not just a pretty picture. In particular an artists impression should be based on other, reliable sources and not original research.

An only good looking but pretty picture even from an otherwise "scientifically" reliable source is not encyclopedic.

Aoziwe (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

More by Aoziwe (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This topic seems muddled to me. First we can say there are two distinct categories of images - artistic images (like you might see in the 1950's of the lunar surface before we landed on the moon, like File:Eclipse_from_moon.jpg), versus more computer simulated/rendered images - like Celestia views, or my own software: like animation showing solar eclipses on Jupiter by Io for instance File:Jupiter-io-transit_feb_10_2009.gif, or lunar Libration, File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_450px.gif, or Halley's Solar eclipse of May 3, 1715 File:Solar_eclipse_of_1715_May_3-animation.gif all where the motion and geometry is predictive, no artistic degrees of freedom, except point of view and the quality of projective bitmaps showing surface details. But obviously these categories can overlap when we don't have actual surface appearances.

Anyway, on the first category of artistic views, even a completely imagined perspective, my position is an encyclopedia can and should show such images when they exist, as long as they are presented for what they are, and that their characteristics are qualitatively correct as known. And you can always included caveats with the caption to uncertainties or possible points of confusion, etc. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I was following you until your 'completely imagined'. I just do not see how this can ever be encyclopedic? At best it is original research, at worst it just has no relevance. Surely for any image to be encyclopedic it must represent some of the either known facts or scientific projections regarding the thing being imaged? Aoziwe (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's one example (left), a size-comparison of Pluto and Charon to the United States. It was made before new Horizons took actual pictures of the surface, so the surface texture albedo maps are fake, but the estimated relative diameters are (assumed) real and the general color shading would be accurate to what was known then. I can accept arguments that a note should be added to the image explaining the false surface textures, and otherwise, I'd say it is useful to show the relative size of Pluto. You could argue we should show shaded ping-pong balls for unknown worlds, but that would also be visually wrong and need explanation. (Also the second right image was newer, including actual photos, which is better when we had that.) You could also argue comparing to Australia would be more useful to people living there, but that doesn't diminish the usefulness of the first comparison to some readers. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

But this readily referencable to reliable sources? For example:

^ Size is taken from analysis of . . .
^ Colour is projected from . . .
^ Surface features conjectured for a tectonically inactive body with no atmospheric erosion subject to meteorite strikes over a period of . . .

And:

^ Size is taken from analysis of . . supported by probe measurements . . .
^ Colour is rendered from photographs . . .
^ Surface features include some actual probe imagery and extrapolations . . .
I would think these images are fine if references as per above. Aoziwe (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's another example for consideration, and to me more questionable, at alpha_Centauri#View_from_a_hypothetical_planet. And actually the entire section is hypothetical, largely unsourced and might be assumed to be original research, just one link to a 1992 Astronomy Magazine article. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I would agree that it looks like original research (without checking the reference (and if it is not it might by copyvio)). I do not have an issue with using the hypothetical planet (or a space craft) as view point to explain the celestial structure and mechanics of the system, and indeed on a first scan it looks like all of what is there is probably scientifically reliable and referencable. I do have a problem with the image showing the surface of the hypothetical planet. This is just wrong in an encyclopedia. Show what the view looks like from the hypothetical planet as per the text, but have no horizon or planet surface showing. Aoziwe (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's another case, Sedna artistic rendering, uploaded because of NASA, but also includes a hypothetical moon, with ZERO apparent evidence that any moon exists. I added a comment at Talk:90377_Sedna#Artist.27s_conception. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sedna is referencable as per above for Pluto and Charon images. I completely agree, the moon should go if it is no longer required to explain the body's dynamics. If it was required to explain the celestial mechanics of the body as initially understood then that was okay to and that is the reason for including it in the impression at that time. Aoziwe (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect we might be in furious agreement ? Aoziwe (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you saw I attempted to digitally remove the moon, and another editor removed it entirely from the English article, after discussion at Talk:90377_Sedna#Artist.27s_conception. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What if we applied a sort of points-based system, where the number of physical features based on knowns are weighed against the number of features added by the artist? If an image is more fiction than fact its continued use in article space could be argued point by point, and if people take exception to a false texture map, for example, that could easily be remedied by noting it in the image caption. The whole point of this guideline is to ensure that readers aren't misled, and I don't think that simply adding "An artist's impression of.." adequately covers it. Most people understand the phrase to mean that an image is a 'reasonable representation' of an actual astronomical object. nagualdesign 22:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it would be great if we could quantify the editing rules and run objective formulas over things. As much as I like your idea I fear it would fail the first qualitative consensus test about the relative weightings different characteristics should get . . . Why cannot we just apply the same Wiki standards to a constructed image as applied to constructed text, primarily reliable sources, preferably secondary, etc., for each of the elements in the image just the same as statements in text. Aoziwe (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree that images should follow the same rationales for inclusion as prose, but artist's impressions invariably feature elements that are simply made up. (An image of this kind that employs zero artistic license is a simulation.) What I'm suggesting is that the made up elements should not outnumber the verifiable elements. If an editor takes exception to a particular made-up feature it should be either removed (the image should be edited) or noted in the image caption. nagualdesign 22:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines are nice, but I'm not willing to support any hard rulings. I'm okay with case-by-case discussion. And the exoplanet are even more controversial since they'll NEVER be seen at all. But that's where I imagine images becomes more "symbolic" than literal, so seeing the same images connected to the same objects offers another short-hand reminder which object you're talking about. In any case, I don't see its wikipedia's charge to "decide" so if there's a public symbolic representation available, I'm willing to go with it, unless the scientists involved themselves reject it as useless. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I read the above discussion and I found myself in agreement with all the conclusions reached on the individual cases. However, I think the judgment of how speculative is too speculative is too subjective and case-dependent to state concretely. I like the idea of requiring references for features in the impression, but would note that there is room for referenced speculation on Wikipedia - see e.g. Asteroid mining. I would argue that having the image come from a reliable source should count as a reference for the speculation depicted. I agree with the idea of requiring speculative features to be pointed out in the caption. I also note that in Aoziwe's original proposal included a softening of the reliable source requirement, which I like. How about changing the core of the guideline to something like this:

In general, an artist's impression of an astronomical object is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia only if it fulfills the applicable guideline below:

• If the impression depicts no speculative features, it is acceptable.
• If the impression depicts speculative features, it must have been distributed by a reliable source, and the major speculative features should be noted in the caption.

If the applicable guideline is fulfilled, but there is a more evidence-based image available (such as a telescopic image or another artist's impression that depicts more known features and fewer speculative features), the artist's impression may still be included, but should not be the lead image.

Note that this guideline specifies which impressions can be included, not which impressions should be included. An impression that is acceptable under this guideline may be excluded because it is more likely to misinform than to inform, or for any other reason, but this decision should be made by consensus on the relevant article's talk page.

(The awkward bulleting serves to make the central guidelines stand out and to allow easier modification in the future.) What do people think of this? Is it better than what we have now? Would you suggest any changes? A2soup (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry not quite with you were this fits in. Could redo your suggestion with the full context text proposed, either in italics or boxed. Sorry must be a bit slow at the moment. Aoziwe (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I blockquoted the proposed text - does that help? It would replace the text of the "Inclusion guideline" section before the paragraph about being strict with reliable sources. The last paragraph would also have to be adjusted a bit to make sense with it, I guess. A2soup (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sources - plural - would be one aspect of justifiable. I'll suggest having 'sources' plural deserves some attention. Artwork would be allowable if and only if multiple sources drive it in to conform to WP:Weight and verifiability. I suggest just follow the cites and if a particular artwork is in fact commonly associated to the object then it should be presented. Regardless of whether or not the cites are scientific or not -- it then belongs as part of an encyclopedic accurately conveying the topic. And if it is only at one source then it does not belong as you'd be cherry-picking which artist wins or elevating a visual above the level it has in the topic. Markbassett (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• State the negatives - In general I'm thinking guidance should also say the negatives about when to avoid art or what to avoid about using art for astronomical objects. Suggest Generally avoid art or Generally stick to facts could be the tightest way to phrase it. I'm thinking (a) want facts and (b) images are problematic to edit: First, the encyclopedia nature of WP:What wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic of showing accepted knowledge should lead one to show the actual astronomy, and if there is none then show nothing rather than fantasy. At least in part because of the already mentioned concerns that pretty pictures would be easily distracting or misleading or even drive out less-pretty actual images and reduce the actual information conveyed by the article. And second, I'll add that the editing concerns of art is also problematic by being subject to winding up on the wrong article (confusion/misbehaviour grabbing any old image) or being put in the wrong context with that being difficult or impossible to untangle. Images are not always clear as to who did them when, what they are to convey, or what they are based on, and you cannot google a picture like you can google a phrase. Markbassett (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll advocate for the fantasy vote as needed. And incidentally google does allow reverse image searching, and it is very powerful. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)