User talk:Nebula Chronicles
February 2024[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Nebula Chronicles", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it implies shared use. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Which specific bullet in the shared use policy are you referring to? Nebula Chronicles (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Adding your own images[edit]
Per this addition, photographs should illustrate something in the text of the article. If you are interested in presenting a picture and commenting on how it is made, consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. Thank you. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. Is this a new change in requirement for wiki pages? I do see a number of nebula wiki pages (like the veil nebula, horsehead nebula, etc) with nebula galleries showing different views and color palettes of the nebula, which is very helpful. Also, for the orion nebula wiki page, in contrary to other nebula pages, I don't see a single image of the full orion nebula. I thought it would be helpful to show the full nebula. In terms of adding own images, it seems pretty common in nebula wiki pages. Take a look at the main image in the rosette nebula page. Now that image which was added several years ago, is not a great image of the rosette. Seems like most of the nebula pages can get an update with newer images with better capture and processing techniques. Nebula Chronicles (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a "How To" of useful information on how to photograph something or how it looks at different wavelengths. Its supposed to describe things. Other pages full of redundant images such as veil nebula, horse-head nebula, etc probably just means they need to be deleted instead of adding more. MOS:IMAGES says "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate" and "should be natural and appropriate representations", so yeah, a full image of a nebula without over the top false color would be a good addition, such as a natural looking north is up image of the whole veil nebula, missing at that page. You can always bring up a suggested image of a nebula on its talk page, see what other editors think. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by a natural and appropriate representation of a nebula? What your eyes can see? Nebula Chronicles (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- That has always been a long discussion on Wikipedia (such as what Venus image to use). With regard to DSOs, it would be: not false color, not some other wavelength. False color or some other wavelength would be appropriate if it depicts some aspect being described in the article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to discussion on nebula specifically? A discussion on a planet is not helpful and irrelevant. Obviously, a false color image of earth would be useless. The best images of nebula we have are from the Hubble telescope. You might know that all of those images are false color. Also looking at nebula pages on wiki, i see a lot of false color images so seems like what you are talking about has been discussed and is not implemented. Nebula Chronicles (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- The relevant "discussion" would be MOS:IMAGES. Its a combination of guidelines and common sense as to what images you include in an article. We are all here to build an encyclopedia and image choice goes along with that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to discussion on nebula specifically? A discussion on a planet is not helpful and irrelevant. Obviously, a false color image of earth would be useless. The best images of nebula we have are from the Hubble telescope. You might know that all of those images are false color. Also looking at nebula pages on wiki, i see a lot of false color images so seems like what you are talking about has been discussed and is not implemented. Nebula Chronicles (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- That has always been a long discussion on Wikipedia (such as what Venus image to use). With regard to DSOs, it would be: not false color, not some other wavelength. False color or some other wavelength would be appropriate if it depicts some aspect being described in the article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by a natural and appropriate representation of a nebula? What your eyes can see? Nebula Chronicles (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a "How To" of useful information on how to photograph something or how it looks at different wavelengths. Its supposed to describe things. Other pages full of redundant images such as veil nebula, horse-head nebula, etc probably just means they need to be deleted instead of adding more. MOS:IMAGES says "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate" and "should be natural and appropriate representations", so yeah, a full image of a nebula without over the top false color would be a good addition, such as a natural looking north is up image of the whole veil nebula, missing at that page. You can always bring up a suggested image of a nebula on its talk page, see what other editors think. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)