Talk:Earth

Active discussions
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q. Why doesn't this article give equal weight to young Earth creationism or similar cultural points of view?
A. This article focuses on the scientific consensus about the Earth. Per WP:PSCI, fringe theories about the Earth need not be given equal weight. Such views normally have their own well-developed articles where there is more weight given to presenting the specific philosophies.
Q. Why is the Blue Marble image used in the infobox?
A. There are multiple reasons. The image is iconic, famous and is one of the few true photographic images of Earth. It has also been a featured image since November 2004. Other images may present more detail of the land masses, but they are generally composite or processed images. For some previous discussions see (1 2 3 4 5 6 7).
Q. Why does the article not have mostly harmless as its short description or otherwise summarize the article's content using it?
A. This has been discussed several times including (1 2 3 4 5). The consensus is that it fails WP:42.
Earth is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Earth is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
January 26, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 15, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 20, 2005Good article nomineeListed
July 25, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 2, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
November 8, 2006Featured topic candidatePromoted
March 9, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 21, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
August 27, 2008Featured topic candidateNot promoted
Current status: Featured article

Etymology has nothing to do with Hebrew/Arabic names?Edit

I wonder why the names Eretz (ארץ) or Areḍ (أرض) are not included in the Etymology section... Has this connection ever been studied before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfusedEnoch (talkcontribs) 09:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@ConfusedEnoch: See False cognate. The words you listed are Semitic, while Earth goes back to the Indo-European root *h₁er-. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

As the article explains, we have cognates in every Germanic language, which according to the Indo-Semitic languages hypothesis, could potentially be why the Semitic and English names for "Earth" are extremely close.

Either way, I get that they're considered false cognates at the moment. Thanks for the answer. --ConfusedEnoch (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing AU for orbital measurementsEdit

All the other planets in our solar system include AU when listing Aphelion / Perihelion. I'm not sure why these are omitted for earth.

These can be derived from the measurements in kilometers, by dividing by 149597870.7 km (sourced from the wiki article for Astronomical unit).

Unfortunately editing appears locked, so I cannot update this myself.

2402:800:6311:752A:CCF1:B0C4:68A2:AC2 (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

"By 2020"? We're now in AugustEdit

> By 2020, 60% of the world's population is expected to be living in urban, rather than rural, areas.[216]

Can someone make that "As of 2020, 60% of the world's population is estimated to be living in urban, rather than rural, areas.[216]

98.113.134.196 (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested change not done because 2020 is not supported by the cited source reference. The source actually states: "By the year 2030, 60 percent of the world's population is projected to live in urban areas". Therefore, I have changed the Wikipedia article text to report what the cited source claims. GeoWriter (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Does this article still meet FA requirements?Edit

I think the article doesn't really meet the FA requirements anymore. A list of issues:

  • Too much of the article is too difficult (not well-written). This article should be understandable to a 16-year old. Yes, I'm struggling as a physics graduate.
    • the very first paragraph is too difficult. Per WP:ONEDOWN, words like sidereal day should definitely be avoided.
    • Further examples of things that may be too difficult include sentences like: . At the equator of the magnetic field, the magnetic-field strength at the surface is 3.05×10−5 T, with a magnetic dipole moment of 7.79×1022 Am2 at epoch 2000, decreasing nearly 6% per century
    • No idea what mean solar time is meant to be.
  • Many of the key facts are outdated (not well-researched):
    • for instance, the article now states that the oldest material ever found in the solar system is 4.56 BYA, while a 2010 study found an older piece: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/8/100823-oldest-solar-system-two-million-years-older-science/. Dunno if that is the oldest one still.
    • Future section is full of research that has specific years and often based on one old primary source.
    • The final brightness of our Sun (5000 times as bright) is referenced to 1993 article. Still up-to-date?
    • Human population in 2050 is estimated using 2009 UN numbers
    • The amount of irrigated land is given for 1993
  • Quite some unsourced paragraphs (not well-researched)
  • I don't think individual weather events are due (summary style). The article now mentions a very controversial heat record, without giving context but it's likely an artefact of poor measuring. I think both temperature records should be deleted.

It would be lovely if we can keep this important article FA. I may bring it to FAR, but hope to find some people interested in improving it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any of these prose issues. The article is quite easy to understand. Where does this 16-year-old rule come from? Graham Beards (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Graham Beards, thanks for your reaction. The 16-year old 'rule' is my interpretation of WP:ONEDOWN, from the WP:Make technical articles understandable guideline. This is a very basic article, and will definitely be studied by 18 year olds, so the best way to make sure they understand it, is to write it for an even younger audience. I feel this article has a very variable difficulty, and certainly has sections that are very easy to understand as well. Further examples of things I did not understand are:
  • This causes secular variation of the main field
  • Charged particles are contained within the magnetosphere; the plasmasphere is defined by low-energy particles that essentially follow magnetic field lines as Earth rotates;[172][173] the ring current is defined by medium-energy particles that drift relative to the geomagnetic field, but with paths that are still dominated by the magnetic field,[174] and the Van Allen radiation belt are formed by high-energy particles whose motion is essentially random, but otherwise contained by the magnetosphere.[170][175]. The sentence should be split in two, and maybe there is some grammar error in the penultimate clause.
  • Earth's rotation period relative to the precessing or moving mean March equinox, misnamed its sidereal day, is 86,164.0905 seconds of mean solar time (UT1) (23h 56m 4.0905s). Why is it misnamed, what is the March equinox (took some thinking that this is the global name for spring equinox), why is earth rotation period measured relative to the equinox, why is UT1 relevant? Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I shall fix that right now. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 Y Partly done. Sorry, my time for education is coming. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 15:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I have initiated the formal FAR to fix the problems raised by this discussion. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It says in the article that a sidereal year has 366.256 days. Is that a typo, originally meaning 365.256 days?Edit

Becuase I'm fairly certain that we'd notice if only one extra day every four years would still mean that all seasons shift three days every year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius Sommer (talkcontribs) 20:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a typo; but, if correct, it would mean a shift of three days every four years. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Wait, the number is given in terms of "sidereal days", not solar days. In that case, it's correct, or closer to being correct. See Sidereal time. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020Edit

Snoopy424 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

xyxyxylibby is bae

  Not done please make clear what you want changed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Earth" page.