Talk:Hello, World (photograph)

text Jake11223344 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

thank you! I make alot of NASCAR/IndyCar Pages but simce Artemis II, ive been following along with the ride and will see what i can do to help. Thanks Again! Brycenrichter (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That looks to be the northwest Africa and southern Spain in the lower left of the picture, the Atlantic ocean for much of the picture, and one can also see South America in the upper right of the picture. WP:NOR but hopefully we can find a third party saying this. Samboy (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

It's from the Artemis II mission, what are you talking about? Jake11223344 (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

BBC News has described the visible portion of the Earth here. Inter-rede (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks (more-or-less) like the photograph made during Apollo 12, of the Solar Eclipse, with the orange-yellowish ring of the sunlit Earth's atmosphere all around. The Artemis photograph shows the terrestrial nocturnal hemisphere, illuminated by the Full Moon! A very special photograph! Wish I could be aboard Artemis, as investigator of geophysical and optical phenomenae. DannyJ.Caes (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

An artifact near the center, a window reflection of something in the cabin (probably), which is not at the other lower-exposure photo, could be mentioned somehow. --Mykhal (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way, also visible is the diffuse reflected image of the full moon on the ocean's surface, south of the northwestern section of Africa. Speaking of the full moon's (or the sun's) diffuse reflection on terrestrial ocean water. I wonder if the astronauts aboard Artemis have linear polarizers to perform optical experiments while looking at the crescent of the earth, with (much brighter) solar reflection on its watery surface. The experiment to "switch-on-and-off" the reflection by rotating the hand-held linear polarizer. DannyJ.Caes (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

It's also interesting to see the complete ring of Airglow (Ionosphere light) in this photograph. DannyJ.Caes (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Randy Kryn, probably better to discuss this here. I'm not saying it needs to be on List of photographs considered the most important for that list to be in the see also (although that would help), but per WP:SEEALSO it needs to be at least need to be related. If this was a different related list of images (soemthing like List of photographs considered the worst) that would be fine. Or if we had sources calling this "one of the most important images" again fine; But we can't just be adding this because we as individual editors think it's super cool and important. It feels to me like making an implicit claim (that this is one of the most important images of all time) that can't be supported by sources, and trying to get away with it because its in the see also.

To give a contrasting example, The Day the Earth Smiled was a pretty important and celebrated image, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to bung LoPCtMI into the see also. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:15, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for talk paging this. The photo is already being highly focused on by the media (see any Search engine listing) and they report on its importance in being both the first full image of Earth taken by a human since 1972 and the amount of old-and-new detail shown in the photo. Sources compare it to Earthrise and The Blue Marble. A link to the most important photograph page is an appropriate use of See also, which will (again, WP:COMMON) eventually include Hello, World per historical importance (I thought I saw a source use that wording, will try to refind it). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd be more happy with some sources calling it "most important". I think I'd also be happier if we could clamp down the see also so it doesn't just become a re-listing of Images of Earth, which seems to be happening now. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Probably all of the major images of Earth are already listed, here and at the other pages. Hello, World has been added to those few pages See also sections as well. Any other Earth-from-space images can be decided at the time of inclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

The photograph is real, and it's spectacular. Or, Cakelot1, so says the BBC. Many more major sources praising the photograph in various terms ("stunning" and "amazing" and "remarkable" to go along with "spectacular") can be found with a search link. I don't know if any of them outright say "important" but it has gotten instant worldwide acclaim, which usually translates to iconic, kind-of but not quite another word for "important". Randy Kryn (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn , yeah that's kind of my point. Many images can be called 'stunning' or 'remarkable' that aren't necessary the most important ever. I would argue that most notable images are going to be referred to in those terms, but obviously not every notable image is 'one of the most important' images ever. There's WP:NO DEADLINE here, we can in fact wait and see how it's covered as time goes on (in year end round ups, etc.) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

This discussion is just about a 'See also' link, which has a lower threshold than a discussion about adding this image to that list. Big difference. From the guideline: "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category." Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Just saying "common sense" isn't particularly helpful as my sense is that it doesn't belong. It just doesn't feel related enough, to me. I get that it's an image that many editor's will think is important, but as I say, surely somebody could make the same argument for any notable image (otherwise it wouldn't be notable). I just think that the inclusion is not obviously related, in the way you seem to. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The link to List of photographs considered the most important in 'See also' does not mean that this image will or should make that list, only that it is enough of a related article to present the option to readers. Importance here is obvious: the first personally taken and named photograph of a full Earth since 1972. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Importance here is obvious, well that's the part I disagree with. It may seem very important right now, but just because it may be relatively important right now, I don't see a link to a list of unrelated, much more historically important images, being relevant. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:13, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ursus sapiens, regarding the annotated version of Hello, World that you posted , I misread your edit comment "All captions" as "AI captions", hence my description of it as "AI-generated". Regardless, my main concern is: who annotated the image, was it you? In that case, I'm sorry but that constitutes original research - WP:OR, and goes against Wikipedia policies. While I might agree with some obvious annotations, such as Sahara or South Atlantic ocean, some others are far from obvious, especially for places near the horizon, like Bogota, La Paz, Harare and so on. Get that information published on, or find it in, reliable sources - WP:RS - and only then include it in Wikipedia. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Ursus sapiens, this is a very good annotated image, thanks for the good work. With the concerns about original research (Deeday-UK, where do you think most annotated images come from? User created) are you sure about the placement of each city? If not, maybe just annotate the larger areas and oceans, but if you are positive about the city placements then go with those. I look forward to your new version, and its use on this important page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Would think that the major cities would be correct due to this being a nighttime photograph with the cities lit by their public lighting systems. The Brazilian cities, etc., seem correct per location. Ursus sapiens (great name), did you make doubly sure about location names? If you have even some doubt don't use a name on your new chart, but if you are sure, that should be trusted and/or doublechecked by other editors. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, since you advocate for the inclusion of this image, you should be the first one of 'other editors' to sit down and verify all the annotations. I too have little doubt about the main landmarks in the Iberian peninsula and western Africa, but to verify all the others, I'd have to sit down with Google Maps and a globe to get the right perspective; not the most trivial task. Besides, if we are to have an annotated version, the rotated one, North-up, would work better than the original one. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The original version, which is the named photograph, should be the template, not an upside down "corrected" image. Alas, I have no globe except the one I'm riding on. Let's wait until Ursus shows up to comment further on their arranging of the various tags. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Giving no opinion about the inclusion of the image, I just wanted to note that, per WP:OI, we generally allow "original-ish research" to make free images. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

It should be acceptable to add annotations of major landforms and human settlements, without violating WP:OR (the simulated diagram of Earth as seen in Earthset could be a similar case). The way I see it, however, the font is too "stylish" (I personally prefer a more neutral typeface, such as that of the Image of the Day series from NASA's Earth Observatory, which would be more suitable for an encyclopedia article); the main title and subtitle are also unnecessary, as those information have already been elucidated in the corresponding article. --Tiouraren (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I've requested a projection of Earth matching that of the photograph on commons:Commons:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop#Annotated_Hello,_World_photo. As the projection is based on existing approved maps of Earth, would that be sufficient to not be considered OR? cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 04:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The photograph was originally published with south-side up, I feels it should be the first image in the article, even if the orientation wasn't intentional on Wiseman's part since that's how it was posted. ~2026-21489-45 (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• South-side up if intentionally taken that way, and have brought it back to that. I don't know the story, did Weisman take an accurate photo of the Earth as he saw it south-side up, or was he seeing north-side up and took the photo and it was switched when NASA released it? Thanks. I removed the "instructions", and think the image should be enlarged so readers can more easily view its details. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "intentionally?" There's no orientation in space, as far as I know he just snapped the photo without thinking about Earth's orientation, only following the vehicle's orientation upright. Many famous space photographs are in fact reoriented, see Blue Marble or Earthrise. Maxbeirut (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Can we get this sorted out, did Wiseman take the image south-side up or was the image reversed by NASA? If south-side up then that's how it should stay, as Wiseman saw it through his lens, and the direction that became the named photograph. Do editors think he was unaware of what he was doing? And can someone else change the direction back and/or enlarge the photo for better reader visibility, I'm probably at the 3rr limit and someone keeps changing it to the upside-down "normal" version. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Then go ahead and place the original Blue Marble or Earthrise at the top of these articles too Maxbeirut (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

No thanks, those have been stable long-term. This one hasn't, so let's get this one right, as Wiseman took it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

You would have to prove Wiseman had precise artistic intent in orienting the Earth that way. As far as I know, he couldn't care less. Which opens the door to placing the reoriented version up top, which then is just our stylistic choice. I'm sticking with reoriented. Maxbeirut (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support Many famous space photographs are in fact reoriented, see Blue Marble or Earthrise. Let's follow this convention. Is there any reason not to? If you think Reid Wiseman took that photograph with precise artistic intent, then please source this. Maxbeirut (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

No need to consider his intent. He held the camera, took the photograph that was framed within his camera. He knew what he was doing. There is no "convention", just people used to thinking that the Earth is oriented in space because of their schooling and life experience. Since this is a new photo, we have a chance to just present the photograph as taken and not try to improve on what factually occurred. Can someone please change it back to the correct position as this discussion continues, I'm likely at 3rr, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but you're contradicting yourself, you've just written above, lemme remind you, "South-side up if intentionally taken that way" Maxbeirut (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

In terms of image size: WP:IMGSIZELEAD says stand-alone lead images (not in an infobox) should be no wider than upright=1.2 (equivalent to 300px). I recently standardized this across similar space image articles—previously they used arbitrary fixed sizes (e.g., 400px, 300px). Using upright=1.2 brings consistency and avoids ad hoc sizing.

Oppose rotation: when NASA first distributed the Blue Marble and Earthrise, they had already chosen a rotated presentation. In this case, Wiseman or NASA could have done the same (we know the image was processed in Adobe Lightroom, so rotation would have been trivial). They did not. The initially and widely distributed version is unrotated, so that is the version we should reflect. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit to add: when the Blue Marble and Earthrise were published rotation in an analog photographic lightroom was not a trivial adjustment, so that choice was deliberate. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually there have been multiple versions of the Blue Marble, in the most famous version it wasn't just reoriented but also cropped (and color-corrected). Maxbeirut (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

One more note… NASA has not published a reoriented version of Hello, World. The version we have was created by an editor on Commons. Again, if NASA intended the image to be viewed north-up, they could have published a version. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The process changed, now NASA just uploads to its website the straight raw footage as-is, probably due to flat earthers or other conspiracy theorists lol! Btw, earlier, the astronauts weren't the ones doing these changes either. Anyway, the process has changed. Agreeing with Randy Kryn's initial requirement above of proving Wiseman's intention, I say it's a free for all so long as his intention is not proven. Maxbeirut (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

NASA does not upload “the straight raw footage”. They can’t. There’s limited bandwidth between Orion and Earth, especially when using the Deep Space Network.

Again, we know the image was processed in Adobe Lightroom, so rotation would have been trivial. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's straight raw footage from the Nikon D5, you can check the exif data and the original resolution is available Maxbeirut (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. The EXIF data also shows that the image was processed in “Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 15.2.1 (Windows)”. Lightroom doesn’t blow out EXIF data. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll quote something I've found: "Some people in various forums are claiming NASA says there were no further adjustments made to the images. However this cannot be confirmed by us, and the EXIF data shows both images were exported from Adobe Lightroom Classic, as they are likely using Lightroom to catalog all the images coming from Artemis II." Makes me wonder whether they actually photoshopped anything or if all images go thru the software according to some procedure regardless if any edits are made Maxbeirut (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

That very well may be true, but what I'm saying is, if Wiseman intended the image to be viewed north-up, such a change would have been trivial in Lightroom. As an aside, I imagine astronauts and NASA must often need to rotate images as I doubt the orientation sensor in the D5 works properly without gravity.

Show me where NASA has distributed a north-up version of this image through its official channels, I certainly haven't been able to fine one. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

We're going in circles. The initial argument hinged on whether that orientation was Wiseman's precise artistic intent or if he couldn't care less. If it's the latter (and it's the latter until proven otherwise), it becomes our stylistic choice I argue. And the reoriented photo is the better stylistic choice I think Maxbeirut (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you're seeing the burden-of-proof issue here in the wrong direction. Saying "it’s the latter until proven otherwise" assumes lack of intent without evidence. Per our usual approach, we should be reflecting what reliable sources (in this case, NASA’s own distribution) actually present, rather than substituting our own preferred styling.

The only version NASA has publicly distributed is the current, unrotated orientation. We know from the EXIF data that the image passed through Lightroom, where rotation would have been trivial. A north-up version could easily have been produced and released if that were the intended presentation. To my knowledge, it has not been. (Feel free to prove me wrong.)

That makes this different from cases like Blue Marble or Earthrise, where the commonly distributed versions is the result of documented processing choices by NASA.

I’m not opposed to including a north-up version for illustrative purposes. But presenting that as the primary lead image is editorializing, as it departs from how the image was actually published and circulated by NASA. We should prioritize the original, as-distributed version in the lead, and treat any reoriented version as an alternative view rather than a replacement. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Both versions have circulated in the press, if that's what you're asking. As for intent or lack of it, the burden of proof is always on the one postulating something's existence, not lack of it. Maxbeirut (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. You're postulating the existence of an image NASA never distributed. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It's actually the same image, just vertically flipped. Maxbeirut (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

You're evading the point. NASA chose to distribute a lower exposure version of this image (also rotated 146° from north-up). They have not distributed a north-up version. The subject of this article the image, which should be the original version, as distributed, unless theres's a compelling reason to not use that image, which you have thus far failed to prove. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I see I'm not going to convince anybody here. The opposition to my edit has been unexpectedly enormous. I'm going to throw in the towel Maxbeirut (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support south-side up, as that was the version that was used throughout the press - our article on the Blue Marble photo uses the same logic. Alongside the photo's article on the official NASA website , see also BBC , The Times , The Guardian , CBS , CNN , Al Jazeera , Le Monde , El Pais , and so on. Meluiel (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Plenty of articles have featured a reoriented version too. Should I link them? Maxbeirut (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, go for it. Meluiel (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support having both with south up first, then north up appropriately captioned. cmɢʟee τaʟκ (please add {{ping|cmglee}} to your reply) 04:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support south-side up The image should be published as photographed. If readers need assistance understanding what they are looking at, I have added in a globe map to assist. Which was is "north" is an arbitrary human construction and the astronauts didn't see the Earth with north facing up. I'm coming late to this discussion and added the map before reviewing it. Hopefully it is informative for readers that circumvents any decision to include a flipped version. -- Pilk _(talk) 01:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)