Talk:Neptune/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Remaining known 14 moons

In the second paragraph of the lead section, why does it say "remaining known 14 moons" and not "remaining known 13 moons"? Gulumeemee (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gulumeemee: It's just a mistake, which I've now corrected at your prompting. Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Struve in naming section of article

Article reads, "Struve came out in favour of the name Neptune on 29 December 1846, to the Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences."

There are a number of astronomers named Struve. It would be worthwhile to specify which in the body of the article.

--Gaff (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2018

Triton, Neptune's biggest moon moves in the opposite way than all the other ones. Moopyie (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This is already there under Neptune#Moons, in any case. Double sharp (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Surface water ocean

This study was presented this summer 2017 with the aim at developing a mission concept to those planets, and it states that ice giants Uranus and Neptune are, by mass, about 65% water and other so-called "ices"; the terminology is "supercritical liquid water". I browsed both Urarus and Neptune articles in Wikipedia and I did not read anything similar suggesting surface water nor such % mass. I'm going to leave this 'on your desk' and am going to let more competent editors decide if this is a required update. The complete report is at [1]. -Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

wow. looks awesome - and relevant - from quick glance. I myself am busy elsewhere in life atm, so don't count on me to include anything soon, but thanks for this post anyway.

If what you write about surface waters, etc. is true, I am quite sure though that there are other more profound articles about it out there already, as this is "just" planning material, not basic research about Neptune. I believe the liquid water aspect is discussed in articles about Ice Giants in general; I vaguely remembers having read about it some time ago. RhinoMind (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that the astrobio.net article is misleading. Other articles on the internet describe the mantle (which is apparently what is meant by 'surface oceans' in the astrobio article) in totally different terms - it is a hot (several thousand degrees) slush of water and methane, which in no way resembles the usual concept of oceans. The other article (the actual NASA document) basically indicates that the internal structure of Neptune is almost totally unknown. Computer models don't result in the three-layer model, and the computer models don't agree with the observed fluxes from the planet. 66.41.99.200 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrong figure caption

The figure caption of the image in the Observations section is not fully correct. ESA (the European Space Agency) as cited there had nothing to do with this picture. Instead, it was ESO (the Euroean Southern Observatory), as evidenced by the summary of the image.95.90.232.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for noticing that! — Huntster (t @ c) 11:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Updated magnitude range

The new values of brightest and faintest apparent magnitude in the ‘infobox’ were reported in a peer-reviewed journal article that includes updated equations for computing planetary magnitudes. Those formulas will be used to predict magnitudes for future issues of The Astronomical Almanac published by the U.S. Naval Observatory and Her Majesty’s Nautical Almanac Office. The equations were solved at daily intervals over long periods of time in order to determine the magnitude extremes. As noted in the journal article, Neptune began to brighten around 1980 and continued doing so until about 2000 when the brightness leveled off. The faintest magnitude in the ‘infobox’ is from the period before 1980 and the brightest magnitude is for that after 2000. The paper in Astronomy and Computing can be located at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ascom.2018.08.002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planet photometry (talk • contribs) 14:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Its gravity at 1 bar is 11.15 m/s2

How is this relevant? 1 bar in Neptune's atmosphere is not near its apparent "surface". The comparison to Earth's gravity causing the measured air pressure is pointless, as the composition of Neptune's atmosphere is so different, and air pressure depends on local weather anyways. Even on Earth the standard atmospheric pressure at sea level is larger than 1 bar. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The mass is incorrect

The mass listed in the fact sheet near the top is 1.0243x10²⁶, yet the link provided to cite the mass actually lists it as 1.02413x10²⁶. I’d correct it, but the Wikipedia page is protected. Math Machine 4 (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks for catching that! RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Rings of Neptune, discovered when?

The lead claims the rings were found in 1982. This contradicts the Rings of Neptune article, which claims 1984. 108.160.125.102 (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, article is corrected. 108.160.125.102 (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

All planets are named after gods in the greco-roman mythology — including Earth

On section 1.2, 'Naming', the following sentence appears:

The demand for a mythological name seemed to be in keeping with the nomenclature of the other planets, all of which, except for Earth, were named for deities in Greek and Roman mythology. (emphasis mine)

This is not quite correct. The Greek goddess of the Earth was called Gaia, which became Terra in Latin. Romance languages tend to use a derivation of 'terra' for the planet we live upon (which, in turn, is often synonymous for the ground we walk upon); while non-Romance languages naturally replace it by their own word signifying 'ground', e.g. Earth in English, Erde in German, etc.

Gwyneth Llewelyn (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

We are implicitly considering only the English names, as this is the English Wikipedia. The Chinese names for the planets Mercury through Saturn aren't related to the Greco-Roman deities either, for example. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Diamonds at base of mantle or atmosphere

The end of the 2nd paragraph in the Internal Structure section reads:

At a depth of 7,000 km, the conditions may be such that methane decomposes into diamond crystals that rain downwards like hailstones.[55][56][57] Very-high-pressure experiments at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory suggest that the base of the mantle may be an ocean of liquid carbon with floating solid 'diamonds'.[58][59][60]

But the cited papers put the depth of diamond crystallization at 7 to 10 thousand km which would be in the atmosphere not the mantle. Thus accumulation could take place at the base of the atmosphere not the mantle. EHC (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 20:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2019

New moon discovered. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/researchers-develop-a-technique-that-spots-tiny-moon-orbiting-neptune/166.82.105.36 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Neptune#Moons already mentions Hippocamp (moon). NiciVampireHeart 23:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Orbital period is 60189 days, not 60182: according to cited source, and NASA

Under Orbital characteristics, Neptune's (sidereal) Orbital period is given as 60,182 days, citing http://cseligman.com/text/sky/rotationvsday.htm. But this source has 60,189 days, which is the same as on NASA's Neptune Fact Sheet at https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.html. 62.45.140.194 (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2019

Neptune is the 8th planet from the sun 2601:245:4002:8E10:305A:735:8BA7:519A (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be already mentioned – Þjarkur (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

OS

There is an OS named Windows Neptune. It is part of the Windows/Microsoft family of OSs.27.147.206.118 (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2019

The image taken of Neptune by Voyager 2 was taken in 1989, not 1986. 5.66.206.208 (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

Two color NASA image

More natural color image made with synthetic 3rd color layer

We are currently using the highest resolution Voyager 2 image of Neptune available in the article infobox. Unfortunately, this image has some major shortcomings. Being just a two-color (orange and green filters) image, it is far from being true color. Several lower resolution Voyager 2 and HST three-color images show what a true color image should look more like: example 1, example 2, example 3. Also, the full scale resolution is excessive and displays a lot of meaningless noise.

We have a better image available. By calculating a "synthetic" violet layer, Justin Cowart has produced an image much closer to true color (rightmost image). He has also eliminated the troublesome noise. For another high resolution Neptune image produced by a talented amateur image processor, see this example (which does not have an appropriate license).

I propose we replace the 2-color image with the 3-color image. Are there objections? WolfmanSF (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Conversion Error (Physical Characteristics (Internal Structure))

This does not seem to add up:

"Neptune's internal structure resembles that of Uranus. Its atmosphere forms about 5% to 10% of its mass and extends perhaps 10% to 20% of the way towards the core, where it reaches pressures of about 10 GPa, or about 100 times that of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing concentrations of methane, ammonia and water are found in the lower regions of the atmosphere."

10 GPa would be equivalent to approximately 100,000 times the pressure of Earth's atmosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.17.85 (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Simple error, someone who can edit please correct it

"pressures of about 10 GPa, or about 100 times that of Earth's atmosphere." should be "pressures of about 10 GPa, or about 100,000 times that of Earth's atmosphere.", since Earth's is 100 kPa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.188.175 (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

missing link to rev challis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Challis is referred to repeatedly on the page but not linked. if an editor can fix that, yay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.181.112.179 (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, good suggestion. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Typo

Since the page is protected from vandalism (aka editing), I cannot correct the typo in the last phrase of the last sentence of the “Naming” section, which substitutes “thought” for “though.” Maybe during the current pandemic, I’ll see about how to request an unlock. Malbaran (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 18:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thermosphere

We currently say that the thermosphere is anomalously warm at 750K, but yet on Atmosphere of Uranus, we see that Uranus' is even warmer at 850K. Neptune's greater distance from the sun probably has little effect, so this doesnt seem so strange to me. Two out of four giant planets have a hot thermosphere, so really, it's just as fair to say Jupiter & Saturn are "anomalously cold". In fact, Jupiter's is also hot, but there may be other things going on since its a very large planet and also closer to the sun. —Soap— 22:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Position of Neptune when it was discovered is wrong

Hello. I researched an astronomy talk recently and found a discrepancy in the position of Neptune when it was discovered on Wikipedia. It currently states:

"He discovered Neptune just northeast of Phi Aquarii, 1 degree from where Le Verrier has predicted it to be ... and on the border of Aquarius and Capricornus according to the modern IAU constellation boundaries".

The first error here is that Phi Aquarii is on the border of Aquarius and Pisces, not Aquarius and Capricornus. The statement above is in direct conflict on another Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_Aquarii

As shown here, Phi Aquarii is not on the border of Aquarius/Capricornus.

states that Urbain La Verrier predicted that Neptune would be "visible about five degrees east of Delta Capricorn". Using the computer programme Stellarium, it shows on 23rd September 1846 at 01:55 in Berlin that Neptune is 4 degrees, 56 minutes and 16.49 seconds from Delta Capricorni. This indicates that La Verrier's calculations placed Neptune no where near the Capricronus/Piscean border in the sky and therefore not close to where Phi Aquarii is located.

states that Neptune at it's time of discovery had a "right ascension 21h, 53 min, 25.84 seconds".

states that Neptune at it's time of discovery had a "declination -13 degrees 24 minutes".

Using Stellarium again, on 23rd September 1846 at 0100 (roughly when Neptune was discovered), Phi Aquarii had a Right Ascension of 23h14m19s and a Declination of -6 degrees 2 minutes. Neptune would have been 19 degrees 8 seconds southeast of Phi Aquarii when it was discovered, not 1 degree northeast when discovered as stated on Wikipedia.

The star in the Aquarius constellation that Neptune was closest to when it was discovered is in fact Iota Aquarii. According to Stellarium, Neptune was 1 degree 41 minutes northeast of Iota Aquarii on discovery. Iota Aquarii had a Right Ascension of 22 hours, 6 mins and a Declination of -13 degrees 52 minutes, close to the Right Ascension and Declination of Neptune as stated in the references above, making it one of the brightest stars close to Neptune when the planet was discovered.

I conclude that Phi Aquarii should be replaced with Iota Aquarii in the sentence listed on Wikipedia as stated at the beginning of this post.

Deathbiscuit (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice research but Wikipedia does not use the original research of its editors. You may want to look for reliable secondary sources that back up what you are saying. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you for finding the time to comment on this correction to the Neptune page, it is my first time in at attempting to edit a page but I feel that such a critical error in a huge scientific discovery must be amended. Are 3 referenced books and a conflicting Wikipedia page not enough to have this error corrected? Deathbiscuit (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Massive nit-pic mode ---> you are combining 3 sources, Baum & Sheehan + Levenson + Stellarium to get to a conclusion = Neptune was just northeast of Iota Aquarii, not stated in any one source, please see WP:SYNTHESIS. That's why I recommended finding a reliable secondary source.

In actuality if you scroll down the Neptune article you will find it contradicts itself re: "it was first spotted 2° northeast of Iota Aquarii". That statement has the secondary source we are looking for "Gaherty, Geoff (12 July 2011). "Neptune Completes First Orbit Since Its Discovery in 1846". space.com". So good catch. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

Please add that the fact that neptune is not technically a planet because it crosses uranus’ path therefore not being the largest thing in it’s orbit because Uranus is larger than Neptune — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c58:767f:6674:2572:4f88:573:a6ae (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't see anything supporting the crossing of orbits mentioned. Pluto does cross inside Neptune's orbit, but Pluto is no longer a planet. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Visibility

I am not an expert on astronomy, but it's news to me that Neptune is ever visible to the naked eye. This claim needs a source, it may well be original research. PatGallacher (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is possible that near Neptune's perihelion (which occurs in 2042), someone on one of the tallest mountains in the world with exceptional eyesight might see Neptune. But I am not aware of anyone that has seen Neptune (with the naked eye). Even this month (Sept 2021) Neptune got as bright as apmag 7.69 and even in 2042 will only reach apmag 7.67. If no one is claiming to see Neptune now, I doubt they will then. (It is also possible that this week astronomers will announce a comet 450km in diameter that will come to perihelion 0.8au from the Sun in 2040. I am not holding my breath.) -- Kheider (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The contradiction with Apparent magnitude § List of apparent magnitudes remains unresolved. It's certainly very much borderline, and only a theoretical possibility so far, but magnitudes up to 8 and even beyond have been seen (see here and here on p. 233), so it could and should be possible under ideal conditions for a keen-eyed observer, as I've put it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the article is better without theoretical possibilities. No one has seen Neptune with the naked eye. It is also likely that the eye is tuned to starlight more so than light reflected off of a blue atmosphere. Theoretically, I can survive a fall out of plane without a parachute. -- Kheider (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Moreover, I think your analogy does not even go far enough, as there is documented evidence of people (e.g. Vesna Vulović) having survived falling from cruising altitude without a parachute. There is no verifiable evidence AFAIK of anyone having seen Neptune unaided. If we're going to assert Neptune is too faint to be visible to the naked eye – except, theoretically, under perfect Bortle scale conditions and with unusually keen eyesight. (I presume this is the sentence in question) then at very least we need to cite a WP:RS in support – and I'm honestly a bit surprised that whoever added that did not see fit to do so, as it is quite a claim. FWIW, a bit of casual research into any verifiable claims of having seen anything significantly fainter than apparent magnitude ~6 leaves me empty-handed. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Brian Skiff made an attempt to see Neptune naked-eye in 2005, when it was at mag 7.7 (so not that different from now). He could not see it, though he saw nearby stars at 6.9 and 7.1. Given that he has seen HD 85828 at V-mag 7.72, I suspect that Kheider is right about faint stars being easier to see at this magnitude than Neptune. I've removed the statement. Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

P.S. This is not the first time this has come up here. Double sharp (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Archon 2488: See the two links I added above in parentheses. Again, magnitudes up to 8 and even beyond have been seen, but I concede that, per above, a planet with a blue atmosphere may be harder to discern than a bright star. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021

I request to edit on the Neptune wiki. On the photo of Neptune's moon Triton, I would like to edit it from A Voyager 2 mosaic of Triton to A Voyager 2 mosaic of Triton KEY1246866 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Triton is already linked in the lead and the body of the article. No need for additional wiki links to the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

JWST image

https://blog.thespaceacademy.org/2022/09/behold-webb-just-gave-us-best-look-at.html

no idea why this article is still locked. 2A02:2F01:F106:2D00:BCE7:82AF:5BB2:20EE (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

New image dropped. I am in favor of it replacing the current infobox image. SWinxy (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Season of a planet?

The 'Observation' section includes the sentence "Neptune is currently entering its spring and summer season and has been shown to be heating up...". What does this mean? If it is summer in the north, it is winter in the south and vice-versa. Is there some astronomical convention whereby we could say Earth is entering its summer season? If so there should at least be a footnote to explain. 203.13.3.89 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The sentence you single out also uses "currently" as well as the logically inconsistent "spring AND summer". It should be deleted. If the editors can't express the idea that "as of [date], Neptune's (entire??) outer atmosphere has been shown to be heating up" clearly, then they should not be editing here. Use of the variously defined seasonal terms should either include a precise definition, or be avoided. That is to say, I agree with you.174.130.71.156 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Error in predictions of Le Verrier and Adams

The article says Neptune was discovered 1° from Le Verrier's prediction, and 12° from Adams' prediction. Is there a source for this? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I went to check to see if I needed to add a CE template but there already was some sources there covering Le Verrier's prediction.  Done MaximusEditor (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@MaximusEditor That still doesn't verify that Adams was off by 12 degrees. In fact, this book says he was off by 1.5 degrees.

• Chambers, John; Mitton, Jacqueline (2014). From dust to life : the origin and evolution of our solar system. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 38–39. ISBN 978-0-691-14522-8. OCLC 859181634.

—Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, why not be WP:BOLD and add that in? I'll back that change. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What is the largest mountain in Neptune?

. Sun2293 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll assume this isn't a troll. Neptune is a gas giant. It has no mountains. Serendi^podous 20:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Neptune is now considered an ice giant, but likely has a core composed of iron and silicate that might be about the size of Earth, and the rotation of the planet is probably causing the ionic fluids to create a magnetic field which interacting with the iron content can cause tectonic activity, therefore the presence of mountains is possible below all the fluidic elements. But nobody has been able to name any of them, if they exist.

And for the record, Sun2293 is probably a troll, since everything he/she has written has been reverted except this. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2023

Temperatures do not need to be in just Celsius. For people who do not know the Celsius scale, when they read the Temperatures they do not know what that actual temperature means. The Temperatures on the page need to also include Fahrenheit next to the Celsius temperature, for people to understand, that don't know the Celsius scale. 2603:6081:A00:2AB:2A64:C8CC:BC34:3951 (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide the temperature in Fahrenheit with a reliable source backing it up. Lightoil (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Neptune named for its blue 'colour'?

I've seen several sources state that Neptune was so named because of its blue 'colour', but nothing that's solidly reliable or that references the thinking of its discoverer. Has anybody found a suitable source for this? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, found one. Praemonitus (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"Neptune." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Neptune. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Neptune. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This is a very minor issue, but I noticed the audio file for the planet’s pronunciation guide is American English, but the IPA in the infobox is British English, as it includes the /j/ which is clearly dropped in the audio clip. The page is in British English, but the readily-available audio clip is American, so I’ve just updated the infobox to include both for now. (Fortunately the source lists both pronunciations as well.) Asticky (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Our IPA key is diaphonemic, so it's not specifically "British English". When you mouseover /tj/, you get the tooltip 't as in "tune"', and you should interpret that as however that comes out in your dialect. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I see! Thanks for the info, I was looking for specification on this in WP pages, but I couldn't find anything. Asticky (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

True color image of Neptune

The University of Oxford published a press release with a reprocessed image of Neptune in true color, which is only slightly bluer than Uranus unlike this article's current infobox image. It would be nice to change the infobox image to reflect this. @CactiStaccingCrane: since you deal with true color images, what do you think? Nrco0e (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Related NYT reference =>"< ref name="NYT-20240104>Ferreira, Becky (4 January 2024). "Uranus and Neptune Reveal Their True Colors - Neptune is not as blue as you've been led to believe, and Uranus's shifting colors are better explained, in new research". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 5 January 2024. Retrieved 5 January 2024.</ref>" - iac - Stay Saafe and healthy 11 - Drbogdan (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I am gonna wait until the research paper is published. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: The paper is out. https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/527/4/11521/7511973 Nrco0e (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

And even better, it is licensed under CC-BY 4.0! Somebody should upload the research paper and these pictures to Wikimedia Commons. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The catch here is that the pic in the research paper have a very low resolution, which is unsuitable for our infobox. I have no experience in working directly with telescope and spectral data, the last time I adjusted the pic in Uranus, I basically average out all of the non-black pixels and try to match that with the rendered spectral color as closely as possible. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Could we email the researchers for a high-res version of the pictures? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Well it can't hurt to give that a try. Nrco0e (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nrco0e: What did they answer? Parham wiki (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Parham wiki: I have not emailed them. Nrco0e (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane do you think this reprocessing is good enough?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reprocessed_Neptune.png IapetusCallistus (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That's great! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: What did they answer? Parham wiki (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't emailed yet, sorry CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I reprocessed the original black and white of Neptune from Voyager 2. Hopefully it is as close to the newly agreed-upon look of Neptune now.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reprocessed_Neptune.png IapetusCallistus (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@IapetusCallistus: IMO your processing looks slightly more cyan/green than the processing from Irwin et al.'s paper. The haze at Neptune's terminator appears grainy with a noticeably gray/light reddish tint in your image. Irwin et al.'s version of Neptune has more of a desaturated azure color in the planet's center, with a very desaturated/pale cyan fade at the edge of Neptune's disc. Nrco0e (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane and IapetusCallistus: I asked a friend who specializes in processing spacecraft imaging to upload a true color version of the Voyager 2 photograph here (colors calibrated to visible spectra from 1994 and Irwin's paper of course). Hopefully this image suffices. Nrco0e (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks fantastic! Kudos to you and them. Could they also properly remaster Uranus's picture as well? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the current "true color" image of Uranus on Wikipedia is good enough, although it does need a slight hue shift towards green. Also, I see that your Solar System infographics ([2][3] and all other variants) use the previous deep blue processing Neptune. Could you replace Neptune with this new image? Thanks! Nrco0e (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently doing it :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nrco0e, done, though now I'm also worried that Jupiter and Saturn does not have the correct colors... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the image processing guy.

For the sake of clarity and some further reference into how the image has been processed for future Wikipedians tackling the issue of true-color representation, I've decided to add some notes about several choices made during the image processing:

- The previous image of Neptune used in this article is actually (originally) higher resolution than the one I've uploaded. Voyager 2's RGB images are typically taken through orange, green, and either blue or violet filters, with the previous higher resolution picture having used a violet filter. Unfortunately, Neptune is one of the few objects for which OGV-filters do not represent the colors of the object well, and it's near impossible to be able to process the old image in a way that matches the newer results from Irwin (2023). As such, I had to use a more distant view that was taken with a blue filter instead of a violet one.

- The image I uploaded is at 2x the resolution of the raw data. It's been upscaled and sharpened slightly (not AI or anything like that).

- I see the image has been brightened since I uploaded it. This newer version matches the figure from the paper better, but the original version is darker since it is calibrated against Neptune's geometric albedo (the figure in the Irwin publication seems to be normalized to some arbitrary flux value instead). The question of which one is more "accurate" is one that needs to be decided, but in any case the two versions do not look that dissimilar.

- I am working on a similar true-color representation for Uranus from the available data. I will try to upload this soon.

Cheers. Ardenau4 (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ardenau4 In the journal, Uranus (File:Uranus-Crop-reprocessed-20230912.jpg) has a dark blue fringe in top-right direction. Is it intentional? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems like this is almost certainly a "chromatic-abberation" type issue where the frames are not well aligned. There are other weird areas across other parts of the limb (i.e. weird blue edge around the bottom left limb) and it seems like this is just not aligned properly on the authors' end. Ardenau4 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nrco0e@CactiStaccingCrane Also, what do you think about the NASA study last 2022 where they tried to explain why Neptune is more colorful than Uranus due to Neptune's more active climate that dissolves aerosols? Do you think this mean that this study is now irrelevant/wrong?

https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/planets/neptune/why-uranus-and-neptune-are-different-colors/

Honestly, I feel sad about this scientific update. I like Neptune very much because of its more-vibrant blue. Seeing Neptune like this feel "meh" now. IapetusCallistus (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@IapetusCallistus: Neptune is indeed bluer than Uranus, although not in the way it's portrayed in the NASA article. The visible color difference between Uranus and Neptune is actually pretty subtle, and that is shown when we compare the visible light spectra of the two planets (see Figure 1 of Irwin et al.'s 2022 paper; Uranus and Neptune reflect similar amounts of light below 350 nm but Neptune reflects more bluer <350 nm light).

Science communication articles and press releases like that NASA article tend to omit minor details and exaggerate them in order to get straight to the main findings and conclusions of the study being talked about. Note that the 2022 study on Uranus and Neptune was led by the same team of authors (Patrick Irwin, J. Dobinson, M. Wong, etc.) of the 2023 paper.

So the 2022 study on Uranus and Neptune's [slightly] different colors is correct, but its results were exaggerated in the NASA press release, presumably because the press release and science communication people (who are not involved in the study and are only citing/writing down the words of the paper's authors) still had the common misunderstanding that Neptune had a deep blue color. Nrco0e (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane, @Drbogdan @IapetusCallistus and @Nrco0e: Other articles still use the old photo, we need to correct them. Parham wiki (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

No usage in article space in en.wiki. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Same with the other photo: [4] CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane@Nrco0e Considering that you want to change all Neptune images with the latest true color image, it seems it will be more difficult since Neptune is the metonym for exoplanet Ice Giants, Sub-Neptunes and Super-Neptunes. There will probably be a lot of images using the old version o Neptune. With that said,

I found one that needs replacing - comparison with Awohali. This image is being used in articles in dozens of languages: I prefer just uploading a new version instead of uploading my own so it changes in all languages, but I don't have the permission to edit the image version. I'll leave this to you here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_436_b#/media/File:Exoplanet_Comparison_Gliese_436_b.png IapetusCallistus (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I know the the change has already happened, but can we get a small section of the page dedicated to Neptune's True vs. Enhanced color? Even if it's just more text under the footnote [a] on the page, A lot of people likely haven't heard the news and it could clear up some confusion on why some pictures still on the page (like the great dark spot) are more dark blue than others. IowaBird (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - Seems the *newly processed images* of Uranus and Neptune may not be from NASA - thus, may not be Public Domain - and, as a result, may not be available to Wikipedia from NASA as such - at least as far as I know at the moment - iac - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane already said that the images are licensed under CC-BY 4.0. Nrco0e (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nrco0e and CactiStaccingCrane: (and others) - Thank You for your comment re copyright - but so far I'm unable to see the license clearly noted in publications re the images - possibly missed somehow but a specific clearly noted reference may help of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The paper itself is an open-access paper licensed under CC-BY 4.0. This include all the photos in the paper. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Huntster: (and/or other) - May need help in adding an image re a very recent processing of the planets Uranus and Neptune to Wikipedia, and being currently discussed on the Neptune talk-page at => "Talk:Neptune#True color image of Neptune" - best images for the Uranus and Neptune articles may be crops of the latest processed images of Uranus and Neptune from the available published multi-image presentation I would think - seems to be open-source (and CC-BY 4.0?) and ok but not sure at the moment - Thank You in advance for your help with this if possible - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

(copying from talk page) Article is indeed published under a CC-by-4.0 license, so the images should be fine. I'm unsure what the correct credits should be for https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/434837998/stad3761fig8.jpg, though the credits are explicit for https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/434837964/stad3761fig2.jpg. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done - @Huntster, CactiStaccingCrane, and Nrco0e: (and others) - uploaded latest reprocessed images of the planets Uranus and Neptune - see the images below - hope this is all ok of course - at least for starters - also - updated the Uranus and Neptune articles with these new uploaded images - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The picture of Neptune looks quite different than the one here: https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/web/assets/pictures/20190305_uranus-neptune-comparison.jpg

This is the same picture that the research article referenced. Can we do a better job with the color or ask the author for a copy of the image? 108.221.234.153 (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

That research paper literally said this about these pictures (https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/527/4/11521/7511973, page 2):

• Figure 2. Panels a and b show early images of the visible appearance of Uranus and Neptune reconstructed from Voyager 2 ISS images in 1986 and 1989, respectively, showing Uranus to be pale blue-green, and Neptune dark blue...
• In more recent reconstructions, showing the ‘true’ colour of these planets they can be seen to be more similarly coloured (Fig. 2c and d), consistent with the similarity of their reflectance spectra shown in Fig. 1.

I think that the authors of the paper have known about this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the paper may have done gamma correction incorrectly. I wasn’t able to find information on whether or not the imaging data was linearized before conversion to XYZ. Is it possible that an overcorrection is the reason for the relative brightness shift seen between the 2019 image and the ‘gamma-corrected’ images in the article? The Voyager cameras were not linear. 108.221.234.153 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the exact nature of the gamma correction but while I was processing the images now seen on the Wiki page I had an independent source gamma correct a Hubble spectrum of Neptune and achieved very similar results to the Irwin results. So the current version of the images is the correct color, as opposed to the old processings by Bjorn Jonsson referenced above. Ardenau4 (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Uranus - reprocessed image from multi-images presentation
(12 September 2023)

Neptune - reprocessed image from multi-images presentation
(12 September 2023)

References