Talk:Outer space

message: The article currently has a section titled 'Regions near the Earth' and the first sentence in that section begins with, 'Near-Earth space is the region of space extending from low Earth orbits out to geostationary orbits.' This might confuse readers because the section isn't solely about 'Near-Earth space' by this definition. We might want to change the section title to 'Regions in the vicinity of Earth' and explicitly cover every region of interest out to the sphere of influence, and in particular cover Sun-Earth Lagrange points, although this might slightly conflict with the following section on 'Interplanetary space.' 
Feedback welcome. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the chapters are a bit jumbled (see newest discussion). Nsae Comp (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regions in the vicinity of Earth 

message: Hey there again!
How about using this image at the boundary section?
 Nsae Comp (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is only relevant for the third bullet. But that brings up a good point: is that really a boundary designation? The citation certainly doesn't demonstrate that. Praemonitus (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that is what I was asking. Which citation? Nsae Comp (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I see, that citation, sorry I saw your note in the article about the citation too late. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I still think that reentry (and its graph) is the most practical illustration (not representation) of the boundary between air- and outer space, especially since it is not an universally defined destinct boundary and rather a rough boundary. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll just say your edits to the article leave much room for improvement, and leave it at that. The image you're suggesting wouldn't be an improvement. Praemonitus (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reentry 

message: Re this edit and previous one by @Praemonitus. I believe the data in the caption provide important contextual information to interpret the image. I would advise to restore the information. cyclopiaspeak! 08:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly I completely disagree. The topic of this image is supposed to be about outer space, not the orbital altitude of the ISS. If the reader wants more information about the ISS, they can pursue the link. The additional text was just unnecssary baggage; the focus should be on the article topic. This satisfies all aspects of WP:CAPTION, while being succinct. The  Praemonitus (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Knowing the altitude of the ISS helps to understand the context of the image. It helps to know that it looks like that from 400 km high and not, say, 2000 or 200. That something is unnecessary for you doesn't make it unnecessary for other readers. I know the altitute of the ISS already, but other people might not and to have it there might help. I don't see why purportedly make things more difficult for readers. --cyclopiaspeak! 18:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's only necessary to know one of the scales, so I'll add that back in. Since it is only being used to view the distant horizon, the actual altitude of the ISS doesn't matter. It could just as easily be 200 or 2,000 km. That's a generally useless factoid in this context, unless you're planning to use trigonometry to figure out the distance to the horizon. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the context argument, though I get the text-length argument as well, so I would just argue for improved wording. Ill give it a try. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: As I wrote in my edit note, the article isnt about comets, its about space, the comet is too much of the center of the image, I mind that much more than the slight blur. So I argue very strongly for the image where you can see the vast expanse of space from its boundary at Earth to interstellar space (the ISS is not the main focus of the image). Nsae Comp (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: PS: I liked your shortening of the text (of the image without the comet). Nsae Comp (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: PPS: its about the end not the structure of the airglow that allows a visiualization of the boundary; and the space station provides something relateable in space (and in my opinion it is nicely in symmetry with the other elements in the image) Nsae Comp (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I repeat, it's not about space stations either. A comet is mostly space; a space station isn't. If you want a different image of outer space, then I would suggest either a well-received image of a galactic cluster (to show the expanse of intergalactic space) or a deep field image (to show the depth of mean free path through space). Praemonitus (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have misunderstood what I said: the space station is NOT the focus of the image: the boundary/airglow and the field of stars are and thats exactly portraing the expanse of space. Nsae Comp (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't misunderstand, I'm just disagreeing. The space station is a primary focus of the image, or it would have been truncated. I don't even find the station to be useful for measuring scale. The comet image includes a stary background, a better view of the airglow, and a more impressive panorama. The orientation is also better for a human viewer to visualize altitude. It's simply a superior image. Praemonitus (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my, well we represent two opposing opinions, so I hope someone would give a third opinion (e.g. ) Nsae Comp (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since we can't seem to reach a consensus on such an obvious decision, I'm trying a different approach. A deep field image provides a clear inference that space is empty. Praemonitus (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A deep field image shows that space features galaxies all over. I dont see the emptyness in that, quite the contrary, space is an expanse, not a void (which is not the same as a vacuum). The tricky part for me is how to portrait the expanse without portraing just a particular slice. So showing the boundary and the vastness, plus a habitat in it makes it relateable and gives a first impression of scale. For me images inform and compliment the text. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

text: PS: I do find this latest image much better than the comet one. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

text: With the changed image description and keeping the discussed image in the body I compromise, mainly because it is an image that resembles what presumably readers have in their minds when thinking of space. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

text: It sounds like we have a consensus then. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contextual information in caption