Talk:Earth/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

Questions

Hello, I was reading up on some general facts on Earth for a project and I noticed some assertions in the article that I think are somewhat biased. Since I consider Wikipedia a great information source, I decided to stop by the talk page to post my thoughts. I then noticed that there is a rule on this page stating: Complaints about the lack of young Earth creationism or similar points of view are inappropriate content for this talk page. I am thinking that this would rule out my thoughts, so I am wondering, where might I discuss this topic here on Wikipedia? And what of my honest opinions about some revisions to the Earth article? Thank you for your time. Elijah Jordan 19:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you viewed the FAQ? Doesn't the creationism article provide coverage for your viewpoint?—RJH (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sort of curious why that rule is on there? Has there been complaints that the Creationism belief should be on here. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It seemed to me that most if not all of the creationist postings were in the nature of PoV pushing. The topic had been debated extensively here, and answered in kind. Overall, it didn't seem very productive nor aimed at improving the article. But that's just my take. The religious viewpoint is mentioned in the "Cultural viewpoint" without disproportionately presenting the creationist viewpoint (as per the guidelines). I attempted to lobby for including language about this article presenting the scientific viewpoint, but that got shot down as well. To me it's fine the way it is: there's multiple articles available to cover the views of the differing philosophies, and the current article satisfies the Wikipedia guidelines.—RJH (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. And as long as the article is neutral about the theories such as those, I am fine with it. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I accidentally overlooked the FAQ. I see that it is already decided, but I think that it could be a little more neutral in the main part of the article. Elijah Jordan 05:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The general view on Wikipedia is that science is the standard of neutrality, and this is especially true on scientific articles. This is also why we have articles on various lineages of thought, such as modern Young Earth creationism. Awickert (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Cultural viewpoint?

"Unlike the rest of the planets in the Solar System, mankind did not perceive the Earth as a planet until the 16th century.[165]" Either I have an incorrect understanding of the ancient view of the Earth, or this statement is misleading. If not a planet, then what? The article doesn't make that clear, and referenced source document doesn't really seem to support the statement as written. The reference says "It was not until the time of Copernicus (the sixteenth century) that it was understood that the Earth is *just* another planet." (The emphasis is mine). In other words, before Copernicus Earth was perceived as a planet, but was incorrectly perceived as a planet with special significance, that is, a planet at the center of the universe. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the globe with remarkable precision in roughly 240 BC. Did he not believe the Earth to be a planet? I believe the article should either clarify how the earth was perceived (with source material) or the statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.251.14 (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that, in their original definition, planets were viewed as wanderers across the sky. The Earth was viewed as being immobile, and hence not a wanderer. Whether it was spherical or flat, the belief in Earth's immobility was still true. But I agree that the statement could be clearer. Perhaps it should just say "moving object" rather than "planet"?—RJH (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really notice a fixed versus immobile line of thought in the article, but a discussion of that might well be helpful. Perhaps the sentence in question could be re-written roughly as follows. "Mankind did not begin to view the Earth as a moving object in orbit around the sun until the 16th century." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.251.14 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be clearer.—RJH (talk)

Add an "In pop culture" section?

I think the Earth deserves one--67.86.120.246 (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lukewarm enthusiasm, at best. What kind of items might belong in such a section? What might be an appropriate title for a sub-article on this topic? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We already have an Earth in culture article, and it has not grown significantly since being created. Do you have an example of what you think should be included?—RJH (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

12/23/2010 I think the first sentence should read:

Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun, the densest and the fifth-largest of the eight planets in the Solar System.

Instead of:

Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun, and the densest and fifth-largest of the eight planets in the Solar System — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvsnut (talk • contribs)

Uh, no. That altered sentence is a fragment. The "and" is grammatically necessary. And if you're going to complain about English usage it helps to know how to spell "grammar". Serendi^podous 21:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, are you saying that "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings." is incorrect as well? The following sentence echoes that structure:

Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun, the densest and the fifth-largest of the eight planets in the Solar System.

If you insist on including an "and," then adding an "is" will help the clarity, thus:

Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun, and is the densest and the fifth-largest of the eight planets in the Solar System.

I favor the shorter form suggested by Kvsnut. (I have corrected the header spelling.) __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We're not writing poetry. Poetry, by definition, gives you fewer grammatical constraints. If you want to be truly pedantic about it, then in your first sentence, the comma should be a semi-colon. That would at least make the sentence grammatically correct, but would read oddly to the casual eye. I personally don't think an additional is is necessary, but I'm willing to change my view if consensus feels otherwise. Serendi^podous 22:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither are we writing formal Latin. Careful written English allows the first sentence (not mine, but I approve.) Semicolon? To splice on a sentence fragment? No, that doesn't work. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We could simply drop the comma. Dropping the 'and' may leave some brief confusion in a reader who could initially take the text after the comma as applying to the Sun.—RJH (talk)

Better image?

Just throwing out this LROC image, as it is more recent and better resolution than the Blue Marble (all respect to the iconic Blue Marble, of course) Serendi^podous 09:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice image, but I hope you are not suggesting putting such a large file in the infobox. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia downloads a copy of the image files that are reduced in size to match those of the page settings, so that generally isn't a problem. However, if the image is the same size in the infobox as the current, the resolution will be the same. So I don't see the benefit. Note that I'm not able to view the image because my system's security filter marks that as a malicious site.—RJH (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to improve the image quality. In an article like this it makes a huge difference.Saturdayseven (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Satellites

Earth may have only one natural satellite, but it has plenty of artificial ones. Why aren't those counted? They meet the astronomical definition for "satellite". Brother Valencio (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, probably because the count frequently changes, so it would be difficult to keep an accurate and up-to-date count. Plus there is an uncountable amount of space debris circling the Earth.

Perhaps a round number would serve? The UCS lists 911 operational at present,[1] so we could say over 900 as of 2010. The BBC says, as of 2008, 6,000 satellites have been launched into orbit.[2] In 2006 there were an estimated half million pieces of orbital debris larger than 1 cm.[3]—RJH (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Humorous references to the Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy are inappropriate content for this article

so basicly this means "Do not replace article with 'mostly harmlesss'," right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karfsma778 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. It happened enough times that people thought a note was necessary. --Patteroast (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely we can make an allowance for 1 April? BordenRhodes (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We already do: Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page.—RJH (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Scientific notation

In the Hyrdosphere section it says "The oceans cover an area of 361.8×10⁶ km²", this is not proper scientific notation, I propose 3.618×10⁸ km² Kevgallacher (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Done.—RJH (talk)

That was standard engineering notation where all powers must be multiples of three. But because this is not an engineering article, that is, Earth was not manufactured but formed naturally, scientific notation is more appropriate. — Joe Kress (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is consistent with the remainder of the article. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Shape of the Earth

In the section shape of the earth there is a comparison between a billiard ball and the earth, stating that a billiard ball may deviate from a perfect sphere for about 0.222%. With the figures I found in the external link for the billiard balls I’ve come myself to the same conclusion concerning the billiard ball. However, if I apply the same logic (deviation from a perfect sphere) to the shape of the earth, the outcome is 0.333%, meaning that the impression of the reader that the earth is more a sphere than a billiard ball is incorrect. Can someone else check the math? Comparing the billiard ball to a perfect sphere and the earth to a spheroid is not a fair comparison, to my opinion. Entropy1963 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

We could say "which is less than the 0.22% tolerance allowed in spherical billiard balls".—RJH (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly my point: 0.333% is not less than 0.222%. Is greater! Entropy1963 (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Room for improvement of wording, perhaps, but tighter tolerance is tighter tolerance. Everest to Marianas Trench? Still better at being a spheroid than a billiard ball at being a sphere. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes you might be right, however, I do not think that the reader of the article should take the impression that the earth is closer to a perfect sphere than a billiard ball. This is what this comparison implies. Entropy1963 (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it enough to say that the Earth is about as spherical as a billiard ball? It's the same order of magnitude away from a perfect sphere. −Woodstone (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought "oblate spheroid" worked just fine. I mean, variation detail is understandable, but the billiard ball comparisons? Why? Brother Valencio (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just a convenient way for the lay reader to visualize how minor the surface variations of the Earth are at the largest scale.—RJH (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Circumference (probably typo)

According to WGS84, The semi-major axis of the earth is 6,378,137 meters. That would make the circumference at the equator 40075.01669 kilometers, not 40075.16. It's probably a typo. Also, why are we linking to an about.com article with no citations and calling that a citation?

I'm not a wikipedia editor so I'm not sure how this should be changed or documented. I didn't check any of the other figures, but I would hold suspect any number coming from the same about.com author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.87.153 (talk • contribs)

It's unfortunate that other editors consider "anything they found on Google" to count as a "citation." Technically, these sources violate our policy on reliable sources. I'm checking WGS-84 now and will edit the infobox as needed; in the future, you can edit the articles yourself to make changes. Nimur (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I verified and corrected the typo. Nimur (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's also unfortunate that some editors can't be civil and just improve the page without disparaging everybody else.[4] Nonetheless, thank you for the improvement.—RJH (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The source for the meridional circumference shouldn't go to an answer on about.com , and the one for equatorial circumference shouldn't go to a page that doesn't display it; in fact I didn't find the figure on the site yet. Saros136 (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This site lists the WGS 84 circumference as 40,075.017 km. Not sure about source reliability though.—RJH (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the current best equatorial radius estimate adopted by the IAU, implies 40075.0142 km assuming a circular equator. Just for a benchmark. Saros136 (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And your site does have the correct figure, calculated using the value that is correct for WGS 84, according to the National Imagry and Mapping Agency part 3.2 Saros136 (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I love that site. I checked the calculations. ( I used a different equation for the surface area of an oblate spheroid) I checked the meridian distance with a spreadsheet from Geocentric Datum of Australia Technical Manual . It is very reliable. Saros136 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree it was not the highest quality source, but it was a somewhat reliable source vs. no source whatsoever previously (I think you overstate WP:RS a bit). Kudos for finding a much better one! And sorry for any offense from that edit summary; I merely meant that Wikipedia should aspire for excellent quality, especially in FAs and WRT verifiability; I did not intend to disparage any of the hard work which has gone into this great article and deeply apologize for the unnecessarily harsh language. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But do we need a source if it can simply be calculated from an equatorial radius figure, coming from a reliable source? Saros136 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite a fair point, though a reference about the equator's length being defined as such might then possibly be advisable. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There used to be a policy about being allowed to provide data based on simple calculations, but at the moment I can't locate it. If we do so, I think we should still present the formula used to derive the value, with the data and a source for the formula.—RJH (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Original research? Saros136 (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was it: WP:CALC.—RJH (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

According to further talks, circumference is derived from the radius of 6,378,137 meters putiplied by 2 pi, assuming that equator is a circle. One problem is to know what is that radius ? at see level (at which point) or an average ? 2nd problem is that earth is not as smooth as a circle. above, it is said that it is almost as smooth as a billiard ball. But what is the definition of circumference when it is not exact circle. It is like computing the length of the coast, it depends of the length of the rule because some coasts have a fractal frame so some coasts have infinite length. That said, the given precision for the circumference of the earth is 40075.016 km, which is quite precise (1 meter), even if there was only water at equater, I will have doubts because the depth of water depends over time (position of the moon, air pressure depending of weather), and there are waves also.Lpele (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I suppose it is like giving the length of a shoreline: the best you can do is compute an approximation based on some criteria.—RJH (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Evolution?

As most of you are aware, the theroy of evolution is a HOTLY debated issue amongst many scientists and to a much great degree, the general population. Therefor i suggest that instead of implying that evolution is fact, it should be restructured to say "The leading/ One of the main theroy/theorem behind the development of life on Earth xxx etc." Or allow for a followup section on ID/creation/seeding and what not, to avoid readers from walking away from the view of only one theroy behind the issue. I myself lean toward the idea of voiding the section of any reference to one or the either by simply stating known facts from mainstream beliefs and referencing the reader to the article on the issue of life on Earth. This will avoid the issue completely, and thus avoid future attempts to modify the section- moving all of it to the main article.

You're thoughts? 76.181.114.227 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Jade Rat

There is little debate among scientists, you're misrepresenting the issue. Evolution: "[...] leading to the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists.^{[15][16][17][18]}" (emphasis added). --Cybercobra (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This non-neutral statement appears to be more PoV-pushing, I suspect by another creationist devotee. The debates among the scientists are overwhelmingly about the implementation details of the theory, rather than the basic tenet that life has evolved on Earth. There is nothing to fix.—RJH (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybercobra, you are misinformed. Evolution is accepted by 66% of scientists in the US, and 74% who hold degrees in the field of biology. There are many reasons for this as well, current examinations require acceptance of the theory of evolution as fact in order to pass, diminishing the chances of non-believers to acquire degrees in the field. This is not only a political issue "persecution of scientific thought" as it's been called, but also overstates the "modernized thought" of today's scientist. It is not uncommon for scientists to lose their jobs, received pay cuts, or be transferred if they openly criticize they idea of evolution. I offer the case of Sternberg who was fired from his position after he published a critical article on the theory of evolution.

Regardless of whether the theroy of evolution is true, or not is not the point. To simply state "It is true" in the article is a breach of wikis stance of neutrality. Instead i propose a separate section regarding life on Earth that incorporates all theories. This will not only clean up the article, but also elaborate on the theories providing supporting thoughts and critical thoughts to each.

76.181.114.227 (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Jade Rat

Where do you get your numbers from? In poll after poll, the level of support among scientists for creationism and against evolution has averaged between 0.1 and 5 percent. Serendi^podous 10:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This comes up with monotonous regularity at the evolution talk page, so there are extensive archives of discussions on this and also a section on FAQs that can be expanded near the top of that page. Reading the FAQs will explain why it is not non-neutral or biased to state evolution as fact and why there is no need to include fringe creationist ideas.--Charles (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the person who didn't sign. Although most would say evolution and the age of earth is a fact, many others would not. To be fair, we need to change it to say that "the majority of scientists believe that Earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago," not just say it is a fact.Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. I believe the consensus was not to use wording of the form you suggest. Also, please see the FAQ at the top.—RJH (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"the earth"

I was thinking someone should also add( next to "the Earth) "the earth" as an alternate name, as several different articles in Wikipedia and several different novels don't capitalize it. 64.229.154.89 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Celestial bodies. The article uses the Earth in the astronomical context, in part for consistency with the other planet articles.—RJH (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it would be pretty inconsistent. For example, I don't think anyone says "the saturn" or "the jupiter", they "Saturn" and "Jupiter". JoshE3 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but then why don't all articles on Wikipedia use "the Earth?" I see articles all the time calling "the Earth" "the earth." 64.229.183.76 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

See the style guide link above.—RJH (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Article needs more citations

Article needs more citations, especially in the intro. I know a lot of it is true, but it needs to be cited.Saturdayseven (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're joking, right?—RJH (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Axis inclination

Has this been updated after the change caused by the Japanese earthquake? 81.155.116.148 (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

1. The change was in the axis location on the earth's surface, not on the axis inclination
2. The change was of only about 0.000001 degrees

Dauto (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Life on Earth

This article doesn't say anything about life on earth, like the plants and animals. Their should be a section on the life on earth or have link to an article on such.JoshE3 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See the Habitability section.—RJH (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability issues?

I certainly haven't heard of this Earth, sounds like an author-creation bordering on vanity. Only know location of life; Mary Sue anyone? --218.215.53.68 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The International Astronomical Union, generally considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, clearly says that Earth exists and explicitly defines it as a planet (see here for example). I'm not sure if there is an actual guideline about this, but Wikipedia consensus has always been that verified planets (especially those in the Solar System) are inherently notable.

While you're right a case could be made that many of this article's sources aren't sufficiently independent of the subject, as necessitated by Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, I'll have to say that's ambiguous at best. In any case, Wikipedia:Consensus is an official and well-established Wikipedia policy, and therefore trumps the general notability guidelines, which are merely a guideline.

Finally, Earth has managed to become a featured article, which almost invariably means that most Wikipedians consider the article to be of high quality. While it's certainly true that article quality doesn't establish topic notability, it does indicate experienced Wikipedians have found the subject of "Earth" worth writing about.

All in all, I don't think we should submit this article for deletion just yet. Sideways713 (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WGS 84 as a source

Why not just use the WGS 84 ellipsoid for the Earth data? The dimensions and sizes can all be derived from the flattening and semimajor axis, just like any oblate spheroid. This will simplify the system of citations and sources, and eliminate all fretting over which source is the best. The WGS 84 numbers will always agree, to well within the uncertainties, with the numbers from sources such as Global Earth Physics: a Handbook of Physical Constants, the IAU Working Group on Cartographic Coordinates and Rotational Elements, or any other source. In fact a source has the results of the calculations, together with the formulas.And we already have many other calculated derivations on Wikipedia.

In fact I propose that we use the dimensions of an oblate spheroid for the other planets. I have already checked the two sources above, using the either semi and flattening from Global Earth Physics or polar and equatorial axes in the IAU group above and compared the calculated vs. given mean (volumetric) radii. There is near perfect agreement. There would be links to the formulas. The WGS 84 page could be used as a source for the equations. Saros136 (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the policy only allows the use of simple calculations that are easy to confirm. Everything else needs a source for the data.—RJH (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policy --Cybercobra (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I know the policy. But policies are not law, and exceptions are made. To confirm many of the math statements in the science articles (especially the notes and references) requires more, and sometimes much more, than what is simple to the general public.

The WGS page I cited is one of the simpler ones. High school math is more than enough. Every variable is spelled out, all of the necessary equations are presented. Saros136 (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood. However, I suspect the use of routine calculations is intended for cases where directly citable numerical values are not available.—RJH (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I admit that you’re right, in the case of the other planets. But not Earth; we have a source that does give directly citable numerical values, that WGS 84 page. Saros136 (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Planetary boundaries, Planetary management, Environmental management, Environmental governance, Sustainability and environmental management connection.

Add Planetary boundaries, Planetary management, Environmental management, Environmental governance, Sustainability and environmental management connection. 99.112.214.0 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? Aren't there enough obscure links here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

A quick glance shows what look like bureaucratic manifestos, some of them skimpily cited. I don't see a reason to include them. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Take a longer look please. 99.56.123.165 (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

These appear to be environmentalism sub-topics. There is already a link to the environmental movement article in the Cultural viewpoint section. I agree with Bill that there is not a strong reason to include these links here.—RJH (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of artificial satellites

I was unable to access the web site being used to cite the infobox entry that lists the number of artificial satellites in orbit about the Earth. After a little investigation, I believe I've determined (from another source) that the number being cited was true as of September, 1997(!). Thus the odds are pretty low that it is correct for the current millennium. I'd like to suggest removing that entry all-together since the total is subject to frequent change as satellites get launched or de-orbited. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• In 2001, the U.S. Space Command was tracking 8,300 objects orbiting the Earth.[5] This UCS site lists 957 operational satellites as of 1/31/11.—RJH (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Erde" is spelt with a capital E

Just a tiny mistake in the last section. All German nouns begin with a capital letter. I cannot correct this myself because of the semi-protection, so I urge those of you who have a "proper" account to do so. You would make one nitpicker quite happy and improve the article in a very very minor way. Thanks in advance.--Tobi42 (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

why a plus instead a cross as an symbol???

no body is complaining about the moon symbol thats its too islamic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasmanis (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The plus is a standard symbol for the planet earth. see Astronomical symbols. Dauto (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the cross on top of the Earth is rarely if ever used now and so is considered archaic. By contrast, the cross inside the circle is widely used in astronomical literature. Both are valid symbols, but, as with words, we usually go with the more common usage. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Combining form?

Should the infobox (for all of the solar system bodies, not only Earth) have a line for the Combining form, namely geo- (and areo- for Mars, and so on)? I would have been bold and just added it, but it's too bold for me (especially if I went through all of the planets only to have it reverted). TomS TDotO (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlock the page you idiots

Tried to fix up the abominable grammar in the first paragraph. Unfortunately some wikiwally has locked the page. The Big Bad Astronomer (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You might consider using the {{editsemiprotected}} tag, specifying exactly what changes you want to make. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The title you selected for this section is decidedly uncivil. Ergo, I'm puzzled as to why you are expecting editors to put any weight in your opinion. See WP:Civility for details on expected behavior. RJH (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I went ahead and proofread/copyedited the lede. Only 1 sentence seemed grammatically questionable. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

All ice is fresh water?

About 2/3 of fresh water is ice. But is on the opposite all ice saltfree?

There is Methanhydrat in the deepest sea. Solid, water-rich, but no ice, I would say.

In Antarctica I think there is at least one salt-water-lake on or in (fresh, saltfree) glacier ice.

Marine salt-water is sprayed over near glacier ice regions, up to what concentration does salt accumulate there?

Is water from molten ice "fresh water" in that sense, that it is safe for drinking? (Without cooking or otherwise refining.) --Helium4 (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The freezing point of saltwater is lower than the freezing point for freshwater. For saltwater that is saturated (23.3% salt by mass), the freezing point is −21.1 C. On Earth, it's much easier for nature to produce and maintain salt-free ice. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

In the beginning, I feel as though "life is known to exist by humanity" would be more appropriate.

Let's not be absolute here and make decisions for our very so likely existent extra-terrestrial friends.

68.109.177.182 (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is covered by the FAQ at the top of the page. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Earth as smooth as a billiard ball?

The section of the article taking about the Earth having a smaller tolerance in terms of diameter variation may be misleading. Here is an updated link to the World Pool-Billiard Association rules http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/WPA_Tournament_Table_Equipment_Specifications, and they say that "All balls must be composed of cast phenolic resin plastic and measure 2 ¼ (+.005) inches [5.715 cm (+ .127 mm)] in diameter and weigh 5 ½ to 6 oz [156 to 170 gms]". This seems to be saying that billiard balls must have a diameter between 5.588cm and 5.842cm, but it doesn't seem to say anything about how smooth they must be, or how pitted they are allowed to be. Thus it seems that the comparison to the relative size of Mount Everest and the Mariana Trench is misleading. I have found two other sites that make similar arguments: http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question121443.html and http://possiblywrong.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/is-the-earth-like-a-billiard-ball-or-not/. Does anyone know of a more appropriate comparison that could be used to illustrate how relatively smooth the earth is? Fods12 00:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fods12 (talk • contribs)

Another possibility would be to compare the roughness of the Earth to the maximum tolerated surface roughness for an appropriate grade of ball bearing. This is more concisely known because of the widespread use of ball bearings. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Earth Trojan

2010 TK7 has been confirmed as an earth trojan asteroid. This needs to be included into this article in order for it to maintain its FA status (all other planet pages contain info on the number of trojan asteroids they possess).XavierGreen (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is untrue. RJH (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean its untrue?!?!? the trojan exists, and Neptune, Jupiter, and Mars all have links to information about their trojans within the text of their articles.XavierGreen (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You said all other planets: Mercury and Venus do not have this information, even if the information is negative. Ergo, it is a false statement. I also question whether the lack of this information causes the article to fail WP:FACR. The current article does not mention near-earth asteroids, for example. Only co-orbital bodies are discussed.

That being said, WP:BOLD still applies. You can always add it in yourself, rather than making threats in order to encourage somebody else to do it. RJH (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Added New Section Earth#Trojan_Asteroid And Related Text And References As Follows:

==Trojan Asteroid==

See also: Trojan asteroid

On 27 July 2011, astronomers reported a trojan asteroid companion, 2010 TK7, librating around the leading Lagrange triangular point, L4, of Earth in Earth's orbit around the sun.

If Interested, Please Feel Free To Edit, Modify and/or Expand With New Material - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist.

This makes a claim for the whole universe, and therefore is almost certainly wrong. We (humanity) have 1 data point for planets supporting life so far (Earth) and cannot assume life else where including intelligent life. Neither can we assume the opposite. My point is if there is intelligent life out there I am pretty sure they would know if they existed or not. To me it reaks of dandyism to worry about active/passive voice over logical validity. In most cases when talking about knowledge we can assume 'human knowledge' but not when making a statement concerning the entire universe and everything in it. SkyMachine (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with 'we' here if it solves this error of logic in a succint non-pretentious way? 'Scientists' would be wrong as life on Earth is a pre-scientific fact (known by everyone with the cognitive ability to know, therefore 'we'), 'humanity' is awkward but correct. The statement could be changed to "Earth is the only place so far examined that contains definitive evidence for life.", if you wish to keep your pretentious passive voice. SkyMachine (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The use of "we" is especially well chosen here, because it makes the subjective nature of the claim explicit and it is in accordance with both exceptions stated in the WP:MOS:

Also avoid we, us, and our. ... But these forms are acceptable in certain figurative uses. For example:

• In historical articles to mean the modern world as a whole. ...
• The author's we found in scientific writing

−Woodstone (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See the FAQ. The current wording represents a consensus view over many, many discussions. You're not bringing up anything new. If you want to change it, then you should gain a consensus. At present I'm opposed to the change. The current form does the job.

With regard to the use of "we", you're doing so with the clear purpose of introducing the concept of a "they". This is covered by the FAQ. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That being said, perhaps an alternative approach is to add a brief, informational footnote to the sentence under discussion. Something like: "For a perspective on the possibility of life existing elsewhere, see extraterrestrial life." This would avoid the need for the Earth article to address an off-topic matter, while scratching an itch some editors seem to have to promote the idea. Would that satisfy the need? Regards, RJH (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That being said if this is a consensus view that continues to irk so many people that there has to be a FAQ response to it, good job to the cabal that arrived at that consensus.SkyMachine (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There are two sides to this story. The viewpoint of your "cabal" also "irks" enough people that a consensus was needed. While we're at it, see WP:CIVIL. RJH (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A compromise position would be worth some thing to me. Just calling for a bit of Richard Dawkins style consciousness raising and making sure assumptions are explicitly noted as such.SkyMachine (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

From reading WP:SPECULATION, this seems to be geared toward articles as a whole or major article content. I don't think leaving openings for highly probable possiblities (ie not completely excluding) in a single sentance covering everything in existance is the intended scope of this guideline. Also if some one can point me to the guideline that says wikipedia is a source of human knowledge solely intended for human consumption, that would be good.SkyMachine (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence should be removed. It's a pointless assertion; just because humans have not discovered life elsewhere in the universe doesn't mean there isn't any, so why mention this at all? Let's leave that in the extraterrestrial life article. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 02:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removing the entire sentence. This is a very subtle form of POV pushing that assumes that there is something special about the Earth and promotes the Rare Earth hypothesis by failing to postulate that the principle of mediocrity should be the starting point. I've tried to talk with RJHall about this before, but it is his way or the highway. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I support removing the whole sentence. As it is, it is a rather sweeping unproven statement about the universe, not a fact about Earth, and a such does not belong in the article. −Woodstone (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point, the statement is a commentary on the universe, not Earth, so it doesn't even belong in the opening paragraphs. I think the fact that this sentence is so often contested and discussion about it is so frequently resurrected is reason enough to rid of it. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 06:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing the statement would represent a decent compromise by eliminating the controversy from article text, and as such I support removal if this would be the most painless way to resolve this. SkyMachine (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that removing the sentence would eliminate these PoV pushing efforts, so I support the proposal. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, as you well know, you are hardly free of fault. But there's no need to get personal here, nor to issue insinuating remarks in an effort to cause bias. If you have a concern with my preferences, we can discuss it elsewhere. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - I *Entirely Agree* w/ The Above Consensus (& Related Thinking) - And To Remove The Phrase "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist" From The Main Article - This Is Now Done - Hopefully, This New Updated Edit Is Entirely Ok - Please Feel Free To Further Edit, Update, Improve As Needed - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

And now, what about the several other places where the same uniqueness claim is still present in the article? −Woodstone (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to be consistent the following two sentences should be removed:

• At present, Earth provides the only example of an environment that has given rise to the evolution of life.
• Earth is the only place where life is known to exist.

It might be possible to rewrite the following paragraph to provide similar information, yet make no general assertions about habitability requirements:

• The Earth provides the (currently understood) requisite conditions of liquid water, an environment where complex organic molecules can assemble, and sufficient energy to sustain metabolism. The distance of the Earth from the Sun, as well as its orbital eccentricity, rate of rotation, axial tilt, geological history, sustaining atmosphere and protective magnetic field all contribute to the conditions believed necessary to originate and sustain life on this planet.

For example:

• The Earth provides liquid water, an environment where complex organic molecules can assemble, and sufficient energy to sustain metabolism. The distance of the Earth from the Sun, as well as its orbital eccentricity, rate of rotation, axial tilt, geological history, sustaining atmosphere and protective magnetic field all contribute to the conditions necessary to sustain life on this planet.

Although I'm not quite satisfied with the result. Any suggestions? Regards, RJH (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

WWHMT? (What would Halicephalobus mephisto think?) Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The conditions necessary for life are just guesswork, for lack of data points. So let's remove these speculations altogether. A statement about the abundance and variety should remain. −Woodstone (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a "scorched Earth" philosophy, so to speak. That will just leave the first sentence.

I'm going to make the prediction that it won't be long before somebody comes along and wants to add this type of information back into the article, setting off another round of discussions. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You could always amend it to to also include a short statement on the uncertainty inherent of a single data point and broader range of tolorated conditions suggested by various extremophiles. SkyMachine (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed! Here's one example: "At present we have only one scientific source of information on the emergence of life in a planetary environment—our own planet Earth."[6] Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I know you won't like this viewpoint Viriditas, but I have to disagree. This is just returning to the topic that we decided to remove from the article. I think this article should just cover the topic of the range of environments that can support Earth-based life forms, without comparison to the remainder of the Universe. Let's just leave the more general topic for the extraterrestrial life article (which is badly in need of improvement) and let the readers draw their own conclusion. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't use the word "Universe". I referred to a planetary environment. Are you telling me to take the highway? Thought so. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Earth is a planet, so using general terms that compare it to other planets or planetary environments would not be off topic. The article already compares relative size of the inner four planets of our solar system. SkyMachine (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. This is basic, basic stuff, but for some reason that nobody understands, RJHall opposes it and instead prefers adding "Universe" when we can only comment on the exploration of our Solar System. Both of the quotes, above and below, are from encyclopedias. This is from Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences, and while not without error, summarizes what we are trying to say:

Life is ubiquitous on the Earth and appears to have formed very early in Earth's history, suggesting that given the proper conditions life will readily evolve on any planetary surface. However, spacecraft exploration fails to indicate traces of any sort of life on the other planets in our solar system. The most essential requirement for life is liquid water. Evidence for it is found only on Mars, and then only in the distant past. [See seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes for current evidence of water.] Theories for the origin of life on planets must therefore rely heavily on our understanding of the nature and history of life on Earth. We have only one data point toward a generalized understanding of life.

Note the emphasis on "one data point", a concept that RJHall opposes for no good reason. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, just by saying "one data point", you are making an implicit assertion that there are other instances of life and you are also making a comparison with those other locations. Hence we are back to the original dispute. My concern has absolutely nothing to do with whether life exists elsewhere, or whether life exists in non-Earthlike conditions; it most certainly does. (If only because of the mediocrity principle.) My preference is to follow WP:TOPIC and thereby avoid the lengthy discourse into true extraterrestrial life (which, by definition, is off topic) that would be needed to satisfy 1b of WP:FACR. To me this is a good reason to oppose your proposition. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you are putting your personal POV above the reliable sources which unambiguously and clearly state, "Life is ubiquitous on the Earth and appears to have formed very early in Earth's history, suggesting that given the proper conditions life will readily evolve on any planetary surface." You claim that editors are making this "implicit assertion", however it is the assertion of astrobiologists, not editors. Furthermore, this position reflects the Copernican principle which you oppose by implicitly promoting the rare Earth hypothesis, a hypothesis that is not supported by the majority of astronomers and astrobiologists, nor is it supported by the incoming data on the current number of exoplanets outside the Solar System (564). The detection of Earthlike planets is currently 0 due to the limits of our technology and the political will to find them with newer telescopes, but it is the opinion of most scientists in this field that the likelihood of finding them is very high based on what we've found so far. From the Earth analog article:

Although the distribution and attributes of the studied planets are still very much unknown, current calculations suggest that Earth analogs may be relatively common in the universe. 2011 estimates by the NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) based on observations from the Kepler mission determined that about "1.4 to 2.7 percent" of all sun-like stars are expected to have earthlike planets "within the habitable zones of their stars". This means there are "two billion" of them in our own Milky Way galaxy alone and assuming that all galaxies have a similar number as the Milky Way, in the 50 billion galaxies in the observable universe there may be as many as a sextillion.

We must ask the question: why is the Earth notable? The answer, at least to us, is that the Earth is notable because it has life. It is therefore expected that we directly address this notability in relation to other planets of its class. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, none of the other planets are notable. Serendi^podous 04:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Earth is not notable for having life? Other planets are notable for other things. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point I'm going to stop feeding the Troll. Bye. RJH (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If you feel you can't engage in constructive discussion because of your strong POV, that's your choice. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Life is a planetary process for which we have one data point. Compare this to volcanism where we have different examples of this process on Venus, Earth, Mars, Io, Enceladus & Triton. If we only had Earth's volcanism to go by our view of how this process works and what conditions are required for it would be skewed. The uncertainty of how common are the conditions necessary for the planetary process of life, is therefore worth a mention in the Earth article. SkyMachine (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What about changing this approach? Instead of focusing on life, why not just focus on Earthlike planets? Of course, this implies planetary chauvinism, but we can make note of that in a footnote. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are suggesting a statement about conditions on Earthlike planets providing necessary conditions for life? Or, just on how common Earthlike planets could be/ are thought to be? SkyMachine (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A statement about how common they are, similar to the JPL estimate above. The person or people who made the decision to cancel Terrestrial Planet Finder need to be fired.[7] Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I would support such a statement, but where would it fit in the habitability section? SkyMachine (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It fits perfectly as the last sentence in the first paragraph, after "The distance of the Earth from the Sun, as well as its orbital eccentricity, rate of rotation, axial tilt, geological history, sustaining atmosphere and protective magnetic field all contribute to the conditions believed necessary to originate and sustain life on this planet." Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well write up what you have in mind. You could be bold and just add it in to the article and we can modify it later if consensus doen't hold. SkyMachine (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I'll try and come up with something later tonight. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What a waste of a debate. Wikipedia has to be based on some assumptions. Knowledge being that possessed by humans is one of them. Another is that in many, many articles we simply don't (and cannot) include the possibility that some"one" off earth has run faster, jumped further, experienced higher temperatures, etc. Change this, and you have to change every instance of "greatest" (or smallest, or hottest, etc) something "ever recorded." HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with what you see as the implications of this consensus, the universal claim here was really the problem (context matters). Anyway have replied over at the Solar System talk page re this point. SkyMachine (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Earth and Religion.

First, I just want to say the article is great! Wrote very well. Except I was just curious as to these sentences:

• Creation myths in many religions recall a story involving the creation of the Earth by a supernatural deity or deities. A variety of religious groups, often associated with fundamentalist branches of Protestantism[175] or Islam,[176] assert that their interpretations of these creation myths in sacred texts are literal truth and should be considered alongside or replace conventional scientific accounts of the formation of the Earth and the origin and development of life

Why has the articles downplayed Creationism as simply a "Myth" It doesn't seem fair to the religious people who believe in a diety creating the universe and everything else. I thought that things like this were discussed in WP:RNPOV?? At the least myths could be reworded to ideas. It also seems unfair that the weight in this article is comprised mostly of scientific standpoints and so little to do with the "idea" that a God made the Earth.

Like I said I am not complaining or trying to start a talk war, I am just curious =] Thanks Sephiroth878 (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Quote from WP:RNPOV: "Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view". The word myth is well established practice as a fair description for religious (or otherwise) non-scientific tales of origins. See for instance Creation myth. Dauto (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

oh, ok :D Thanks User:Dauto I must have misread the RNPOV. I see what you mean now. My apologies =D Sephiroth878 (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Earth is the only one ?

Recently i added a statement "It's the only planet in the universe we know that can support life." then it got reverted. I disagreed with the person who reverted it and i think nothing is wrong with my statement. I believe most people on this planet would agree with me, it is an undeniable fact that Earth is the only planet so far that we know can support life. If no one can prove there is another planet can support life then by using logic my statement holds true. I already discussed about this with User Skymachine here, we didn't end up in consensus so therefore i will bring it here for further discussion and perhaps we can take a voting to determine whether or not to claim Earth uniqueness. The only fair way if we can't reach consensus since almost all arguments can't reach consensus because it's hard to change someone's POV. Same thing as if you try to convince someone to give up their faith.Trongphu (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is wrong in several respects: The Earth does not "support" life, this is a teleological argument. Life is adapted to local conditions that continue to change. The life that first arose here would be killed by current local conditions or atleast outcompeted into oblivion. Your argument is bad: You say Earth is the only planet we know [out of eight] with life so should we also mention in the article that Earth is the only planet in the universe we know that can support waterfalls or saltwater oceans? [Yes I know, extraterestrial waterfalls would be off topic] This of course would be daft as any (as yet undiscovered) terrestrial type planet with enough water vapor precipitating out of its atmosphere, dust to seed clouds, a cool enough but not too cool surface, and an active geology to result in an uneven uplifted surface would possess conditions for waterfalls (atleast for certain periods) But still ... [here comes the bad argument] Earth is the only one we know of right? Scientific principles that survive rigorous and methodical attempts at falsification are universal, so the fact that waterfalls and life exist on Earth establishes that they can exist anywhere in the universe where the right conditions are met (occurences of abiogenesis would be rarer than that of waterfalls, but this universal principle still remains). The fact that you would wish to make a statement about the uniqueness of life but not about waterfalls implies that you are supporting a POV about rarity of life. Our consensus as it stands is to not mention speculation on the unknown abundance of extraterestrial life (as it is Off topic) and I propose to keep it this way as otherwise it leads to perrenial revision attempts for either POV. Your proposed edits speculate a rare Earth (even if you refuse to see it this way) from a very small sample size (8 planets/ 1 solar system). SkyMachine (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully support SkyMachine's analogy. The way the argument was constrtucted out of the Fermi paradox. I suggest you also refer to the FAQ list above in the talkpage header. --TitanOne (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

However, we need to engage the reader with the facts. It is entirely reasonable to mention that the Earth is only one of billions of planets in the galaxy. The preliminary results from the Kepler mission, whose primary purpose was to "provide a statistical estimate of Earth-sized planets in stellar habitable zones where surface oceans of water could exist"[8] speculates that there could be 50 billion planets in the galaxy alone, 500 million of which could be located in the habitable zone of their star. Faced with these numbers, how anthropocentric is it of us to say that we are the only planet with life in the galaxy? To loosely paraphrase Jill Tarter, the extent of our search so far amounts to dipping a glass in the ocean only to find that there aren't any fish. Should we conclude that the ocean is devoid of life? The next step is to try to detect biomarkers in exoplanetary atmospheres. We haven't even begun to search the galaxy for life. Viriditas (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Abundances

I'm rather new to Wikipedia, so sorry if I mess up formatting on this talk page. I just wanted to point out that the elemental percent abundances on the Earth page seem to be inaccurate at a glance. Iron at > 30%! Refer to http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/elabund.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.203.1 (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

30% where? Note that the data vary across the sources and it is crucial to specify where it is measured (crust, ocean, etc.). See Abundances of the elements (data page). Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I found >30% you mentioned. It is the content averaged over the whole Earth, not just the crust. The core is mostly iron. Materialscientist (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the attempts to suppress alternative names?

What's behind the apparent objective by several editors to suppress information about Earth's several alternative names, i.e. Gaia, Tellus as well as Terra? Only the last of these were mentioned in the article, so

1. I added all three to the planet infobox with the requisite alt_names= parameter.
   • This is cursorily reverted by user:Woodstone with no explanation.
2. So I reintroduce this information.
   • This is also reverted, this time by user:Ckatz and with the tautological explanation "alt names not needed in infobox".
3. Again I reintroduce this information, now with the edit summary "Who decides without discussion that "alt names not needed in infobox"? Woodstone? Ckatz?)"
   • User:Ckatz then reverts with the explanation "PLease discuss rather than simply returning"
4. I readd the infobox line with edit summary "Hey, YOU discuss! You started removing this with no explanation.".
   • Again user:Ckatz reverts, edit summary "Actually, Woodstone removed it, you're the one adding it (since Oct 2) Discuss first please"

I'm rather baffled by these actions. Could someone please explain to me

1. Why these alternative names aren't considered appropriate information for this article and why they cannot be displayed using an infobox line specifically tailored to display such alternative names?
2. Why editors Woodstone and Ckatz are so reluctant to present their reasoning for this?

__meco (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaia and Tellus are not widely accepted as names for this planet among English speakers. They are not significant enough to appear in the lead paragraph, so I see no need to mention them in the infobox. "Terra" is a Latin name which does appear in the lead, but I am not convinced it also needs to be mentioned in the infobox of this English article.

It would be better to provide reasons for your proposed addition, than for anyone to speculate about the objective or motivation of other editors. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that statement is false. "Gaia" is probably more well known than any other name for this planet. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, in senses coming from the name of the Greek goddess, and holistic hypotheses, but is it accepted as a name for the astronomical body? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Like Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus. Earth may be an astronomical body, but that doesn't mean that this page applies solely to astronomers and space science enthusiasts. Like it or not Gaia is used by many English speaking people. I've only heard it called Terra in science fiction, but what I don't know counts for nothing. nagualdesign (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the revision history it appears that I indeed removed those alternate names. It seems that I reverted one edit more than intended. I do not object to the inclusion of those names. −Woodstone (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the concession from Woodstone, and I hope more support presents itself for having all three alternative names for our planet presented, in the article as well as the infobox. __meco (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I support having Gaia in the alt_names (it's well known and ain't just hippie-speak!) and, by extension, Tellus (though I'm not familiar with that). Regarding the discussion of edits, it's pointless getting your hackles up ("Please discuss", "Hey, YOU discuss!" and "attempts to suppress..") Just bite the bullet, as you have done, and 'let dicks be dicks'. You may find that there was actually a simple misunderstanding (case in point: Woodstone). nagualdesign (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or thesaurus. Wiktionary would be the place to list alternative names.--Charles (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Then what is the rationale behind the alt_names parameter in {{Infobox planet}}? Why mention Terra in the opening paragraph? Why provide pronunciations and adjectives for planets (eg, /ˈviːnəs/; Venusian or (rarely) Cytherean, Venerean)? And, for that matter, why provide etymologies for any articles on Wikipedia? Answer: Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Just because a thesaurus provides synonyms, that does not mean that Wikipedia should not mention that the Earth is also known by other names. Perhaps you should actually read WP:NOTDIC. It mentions nothing about avoiding synonyms. nagualdesign (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added alt_names = [[Terra]], [[Tellus]], [[Gaia]] to the infobox. Terra is already mentioned in the OP (ie, it is a genuine alternative designation), Gaia is particularly well known (see Gaia hypothesis, etc. Also, from New Age Gaian "..our Home World, the Earth, also known as Gaia.") I can't speak for Tellus, apart from to say that just because it is unfamiliar to me does not mean it should not be included. In fact, learning new things is a primary reason for visiting Wikipedia. Please do not revert until you have made your objections known and a consensus is reached. It does no harm to add to the article for the time being (as the alternate names are factual). Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The rationale behind the alt_names parameter in {{Infobox planet}} appears to be accommodating Provisional designation in astronomy. As it now stands, Tellus and Gaia point to disambiguation pages, not the most appropriate links to appear in an infobox. If reliable sourcing can be found, I have no objection to adding these alternate names to the body of the article. Unless and until they can be shown to be widely accepted alternate English names for this planet, I do not believe they have a place in the infobox. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for waiting 1 hour and 18 minutes before reverting. That should have been plenty of time. And in the grand scheme of things meco, Woodstone, Viriditas and I hold much less weight than Charles and yourself, so it makes perfect sense to take this lack of consensus as reason enough to simply push your own agenda. Who needs a discussion when there's the opportunity for an edit war, eh? Nice one Bill. ;-)

Seriously though, I had said "Please do not revert until you have made your objections known and a consensus is reached. It does no harm to add to the article for the time being (as the alternate names are factual)." Did you not understand that or are you deliberately obtuse? There are several pages already on Wikipedia that use the term Gaia. It isn't at all as uncommon as you seem to think. And if you don't like the links (which allow users to easily delve further if they wish to know more) why not simply unlink them instead of removing the whole thing? Also, are you saying that we must prove that the Latin names are actually English?! nagualdesign (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You just know things are FUBAR if meco and I are in agreement. :) Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's not true! Satisfied? __meco (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the article stood without alternate names until early last October. As the above discussion shows, we don't yet have consensus for that change, and miles of assertions carry less weight than a few reliable sources, which I have not yet seen presented. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of discussion please drop the combative, fight-your-own-corner approach and try to help us work towards a genuine consensus. For example, a quick Google of alternate names for the earth yields several references to Gaia without even following the links, the top 2 results being Wikipedia pages. So what would be a satisfactory secondary source in this instance? Please don't fold your arms in a huff and say, "The burden of proof is on you!" I can assure you that Gaia is well known, now let's try to work together to see if this can be formulated into an encyclopedic form. Stating that the article stood without alternate names until early last October is irrelevant. And stamping on the brakes is counter-productive. nagualdesign (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Counting Google hits "without even following the links" is not a way to find a reliable source. If you follow that link, you will find that since "Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy[...] Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose."

The article standing without alternate names in the infobox until just over two months ago is relevant because this is a featured article which came to its present state after a lot of work. Changing highly visible parts of a featured article needs extra care.

I don't dispute that Gaia is well-known as a term for certain views of Earth as a self-sustaining whole, along with mythological senses. Its use in fiction and gaming is more evidence of being well-known, but only marginally relevant to an encyclopedia article about a planet.

"Terra" can just as easily disappear from the infobox too. I left it there because of my general sense that it was the most applicable of the three, but without sourcing, perhaps it should be removed as well. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was that the possible sources are so numerous that picking one could be a wild goose chase without some kind of guidance. I'd rather not have to produce an endless list of examples for you to simply pooh-pooh. nagualdesign (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll: should Terra be listed?

Oppose. A science fiction name should not appear in a science article. All adding this name does is lead others to ask why Gaia and Teegeeeack aren't included as well. Serendi^podous 13:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This straw poll is flawed for several reasons and I don't think going through with it will be helpful. __meco (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What secondary sources support the assertion that "Terra" only appears in science fiction? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with meco. This poll strikes me as an arse about tit way of opposing the inclusion of Gaia and Tellus, which you have made no comment on above. And Bill, shouldn't you be questioning whether Terra is a widely accepted alternate English name for this planet, as you have done with Gaia, rather than the other way around? (The current source states that "the term terra is used only for naming extensive land masses on celestial bodies other than the Earth") Demanding that reliable secondary sources are required to approve one name and to disprove another before any changes can be made is a blatant contradiction. nagualdesign (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to include it since it's the Latin name of the planet. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• In the interest of honesty: "terra: [...] 2. Science Fiction. (With capital initial.) The Earth." — OED. Still not a reason to exclude it, IMO. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. My paper copy of the OED does not include that, being limited to senses related to "dirt," such as terra alba (pipeclay) or terra cariosa (tripoli or rottenstone). __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, does etymonline.com count as a reputable source? I don't have access to the OED, but most online dictionaries conclude their entry for Gaia with ..from Greek gaia 'earth' (note the lower-case, I assume that means soil/dirt) but don't explain further, so I looked for an etymology. But then again, an etymology says nothing about a how well known/used a word is. Google Ngram Viewer says something about it's usage, but nothing like used in English poetically or rhetorically for "Earth personified" or "the Earth as a planet." nagualdesign (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OED: "Gaia, n. The global ecosystem, understood to function in the manner of a vast self-regulating organism, in the context of which all living things collectively define and maintain the conditions conducive to life on earth; (also) the theory which proposes this." That's the only definition it gives, so it claims it's the ecosystem as opposed to the planet per se [in English at least]. Though the derivation cites the Greek goddess of course. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cybercobra. I guess the real question then is, is (an article about) Earth necessarily (an article about) an ecosystem, or are the 2 topics divisible? The modern Gaia theory includes all of the Earth's inorganic processes, as well as lifeforms, in it's desciption of 'the living Earth'. I don't think that you could point out one component of the Earth and say, "That bit's Gaia." The whole planet is referred to as Gaia (without wishing to personify it, of course). nagualdesign (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole planet for all time? The physical assembly of the Earth and the begining of planet wide ecosystems are clearly seperate events that happened at different times, so Gaia mysticism can be seperated from the physical reality of Earth on this temporal distinction. If ecosystems were to end on Earth the Earth would still exist provided they were not anihilated at the same time. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 20:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair comment, but it hasn't always been a 'Blue Planet' either. When talking about what something is called we're usually refering to what people call it now. Having thought about it, perhaps none of these names should be in the infobox - being as it is entirely concerned with orbital variables and other (only) astronomical data - but I still think that they should be mentioned in the article body. Perhaps somewhere among the contents of the Cultural viewpoint section. (Which itself needs some work, IMO. It's first paragraph leaps from Earth's etymology to it's astronomical symbol. The second is about various faiths but begins with a disjointed sentence. And the last paragraph ranges from a flat Earth to spaceflight to the environmental movement.) nagualdesign (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding it to the Cultural viewpoint would be ok by me. The problem with having these terms in the main infobox or lead paragraph is that it assumes equivalency or interchangeability of these seperate concepts with "Earth." SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 19:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2012

24.54.199.226 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Earth Shape

Mt. Chimborazo is listed as the furthest place on land from the center of the Earth. No problem. But in the caption under the photo it is listed as the closest point on land to out space. It is my understanding that this is an incorrect statement. Does the Atmosphere not follow the rules of gravity and does it not also bulge outward at the Equator. In other words the atmosphere should be an elliptoid as well as the land. Thus the closest point to outer space is still Mt. Everest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.119.242 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with that logic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Change the caption to not refer to outer space (might need a new reference, the existing one doesn't consider these subtleties). Your point raises the question of how much does the shape of the atmosphere conform to the shape of the surface (or reference spheroid). The atmosphere is much more fluid so its equilibrium shape ought to be quite variable. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 07:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

New Earth Picture

Could this picture be added or does it need a better source? This is a picture of the Earth whole, from what I read. http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/6760135001/in/photostream/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.149.7 (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

North America looks gigantic in this pic, like it is distorted from its true size (compared to Google Earth perspective). Any way I don't think we should discard the blue marble pic in any case, include both if necessary. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 20:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My problem with it is that it is a composite, as all modern "Blue Marbles" have to be. I prefer an actual photograph. Serendi^podous 20:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support keeping the photo, or at least an image including clouds. Clouds are part of the earth and should thus be included in the main illustration of the planet. We wouldn't use a reconstructed image of Venus's surface in the main image for that article. The Blue Marble images are pretty, but they are not what the planet looks like. It has also been argued before that this is an iconic image of earth, widely used and recognized, and that it, in particular, should be kept for that reason. I don't have strong feelings about that, but I do think the image should be a real photo (i.e. a snapshot in time, with clouds), and there are not too many other similar snapshots showing a full hemisphere at this time. StephenHudson (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New Blue Marble

I just added an updated version of NASA's "Blue Marble" photo and it was reverted with the summary "no consensus for a new image." While it is true that there is no consensus for a new image, this is true of any new edit as consensus cannot exist for something that didn't exist previously. In other words, "no consensus" isn't really a reason to revert since technically that would apply to any edit ever made. What is your actual objection to the updated version? It's a similar photo but much higher resolution and the only real difference is the landmass being photographed.

Secondly, I'm not familiar with how to resize images and although this image is a perfect square it appears to be skewed for some reason, I'm guessing because of the large size. I used "300px" in my image code but it needs to be something like 300x200, is this possible to do? I couldn't figure it out by reading WP:IMAGE. Help is appreciated on that matter! N^oformation ^Talk 20:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It might pay you to read the talk page and previous edit summaries, this image has been added and reverted once already this week. Also look up FAQ at top of this page for explanation as to why current image is used. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 20:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! – IVAN3MAN (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The original Blue Marble picture is iconic and in my opinion (and those of many others) it is a perfect representation of Earth. The various landscapes, wispy white clouds, and deep blue oceans are all displayed perfectly in that breathtaking photo. There is no use in replacing it with a less familiar image when this one more than adequately represents Earth. Cadiomals (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the spoken version

The spoken version of this article is NOT computer generated. That is my voice. Marmenta (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was my mistake :( -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Circumnavigation

What's the record for the fastest circumnavigation of Earth by plane? And how long is such distance? MarcowyGnom (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made a slight edit to List of circumnavigations. Serendi^podous 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Human

Corrected the term "humans" to "human beings." Human is an adjective, not a noun TheKurgan (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And I've undone that (you signed your change there also), please read Human. Vsmith (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

TheKurgan (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)I did read Human. 450 years of being incorrect doesn't make it right, even if it is "acceptable...:)" I'll leave it, though, and pick my battles elsewhere.

reference plane?

What is the reference plane for Earth's orbital elements given in the article? --Jonah.ru (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Internal Structure of the Earth

This section states as facts some very contested hypothesis. As recently as 2000, the very core of the earth was still "anybody's guess" according the group of geophysicists I had interviewed at that time. Since our primary method of looking at the earth's core is by measuring earthquakes, we really ought to tone down the definitive language of this section. Also, reference 74, linked from the words "inner core" has nothing to do with the inner core, but the crust thickness variations of the different continents.

Let's clean up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.154 (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources for any of this? You should, if you interviewed them. We'll need that before any changes can be made. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy in the Infobox

Now I'm sorry if this has already been addressed, or perhaps my math is simply off. But I believe that the earth's volume in the infobox is not at all correct. It's listed as 1.80321 x 10¹² but I think it should be 1.80321 x 10¹⁸. I'll put all of my math down below just so you can check my work.
It's listed as 1.08321 x 10¹² cubic kilometers which would make the density (mass/volume) 5.97 x 10²⁴ kg/ 1.08321 x 10¹² cubic km.Which is 5511396682083.8 kg/cubic km. Since no one measures in kg/cubic km you start by changing the volume from cubic km to cubic m by multiplying by 1 x 10³ or 1000. and that gives you 5.97 x 10²⁴ kg/ 1.08321 x 10¹⁵ which is 5511396682.0838 kg/cubic meter, if you convert that to g/ccm (cubic centimeter) it's 5511396.6820. That's 10^-6 g/ccm off from what the earth's density should be. Which is quite a lot. So if you multiply 1.08321 x 10¹² by 1 x 10⁶ you'll get 1.08321 x 10¹⁸. Which if you then redo all of the math comes out to a much more reasonable 5511.3967 kg/cubic meter, or 5.5114 g/ccm which is slightly off from the mean density listed in the infobox due to rounding error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henwood91 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

cubic kilometer = 10⁹ cubic meters Jonah.ru (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are we even using kilometers in the infoboxes when we have perfectly good SI unit prefixes? Convert it to cubic gigameters. Zlynx (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Imperial

Should we not add imperial units (i.e. miles – say, in brackets?) to the 'physical parameters" section of the infobox? I am not proposing we do this for every celestial body, but since there are roundabout 300 million Americans in existence, most of whom live on the Earth (!), many of whom doubtles read the English Wikipedia, it might be useful for them to be able to easily see the dimensions of the planet they live on without having to specifically go away in order to convert the data. whatthinksyou? :-) BigSteve (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that we could definitely do that, at least in parenthesis. For people who even know what an imperial unit is. I think that is a great idea. We will see what other people think. Karicats7 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Statute (survey) miles, international miles, nautical miles, or two-thousand-yard "sea miles?" The infobox is bulky enough as it is; if other units are to be added, it should only be for a very few selected parameters. I'm not too enthusiastic about the idea. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a scientific article. My understanding is that metric units are mostly used in science teaching even in the USA. Let's stick to metric. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering we're talking about Earthly distances, and a significant portion of English speakers normally use (5280-foot) miles for such distances, I think a reasonable argument can be made for making an exception. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times here and on other astronomy pages, and the consensus is to use SI. I'll see if I can dig up the relevant discussions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the point here that Earth is arguably worth special-casing? I don't see anyone arguing here for inclusion of Imperial on other astronomy articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Any planet with a few hundred million inhabitants demonstrably using Imperial units should also have them available in the article for ease of comprehension by the residents of that planet. - Dravecky (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

O, and while you are at it why not include the Burmese measures too, another country strong on exceptionalism. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget Libya. It's THE other country which hasn't metricated. It's not the earth that's a special case, it's the USA and its two friends. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully, this is English Wikipedia, so we are not unjustified in overlooking Burmese and Libyan units, unless they plan to add English as an official language. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so it's just the USA that's a special case. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside Ignore all rules for now, are there any policy positions that would apply here for the support of including imperial units? Can you make a case there? SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 09:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

To me, the context in which Imperial unit conversions still makes some sense is within the scope of everyday experience, such as surface temperature or the dimensions of geographic features. But for orbital parameters and other data that are outside the scale of everyday experience, SI should be used. Hence, consistency may require that only SI units are used. However, I see that the Mars article still includes some Imperial unit conversions, so that may not be true. Regards, RJH (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Cybercobra and Dravecky for supporting the idea - and yes, I was only talking about the Earth as a special case, and only for the "physical" parameters at that, i.e. not the "orbital" or other ones. And i think Skymachine and HiLo48 are being intentionally argumentative - we're talking abouth the "Earth" article on the English Wikipedia only, therefore to include a measurement which is used by the majority of mother-tongue English speakers on this planet in relation to the celestial body they inhabit i don't think is an idea that is too far-fetched. Thanks, also, RJH for the reasoned comments and, actually, when you think about it, other planets' articles have a ratio comparison to the Erath's diameter in their infobox (e.g. "Mars's diameter = 0.533 of the Earth's"). Since the Earth article obviously doesn't have this, the ratio comparison could easily be replaced by miles/Fahrenheit (for British readers)/imperial tonnes/whatever without in any way overloading the infobox any more than other planets' infoboxes. BigSteve (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but seriously, how dumb are Americans? (I actually don't think they are dumb.) As I posted above, it's my understanding that SI units are used in science teaching in the USA. They won't all forget. It's ridiculous to suggest that no American will understand their use here, so the numbers quoted above are just silly and exaggerated. This IS a scientific article. The standard is SI units. HiLo48 (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Former U. S. "President Dwight Eisenhower express[ed] astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence" (Sagan, 1996). Regards, RJH (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In "Habitability" section: wrong word

The word is "climatic", not "climactic", in reference to the climate of Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaineSteve (talk • contribs) 03:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I've fixed it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

moon

the moon section of the earth article includes this text---

Some theorists think that without this stabilization against the torques applied by the Sun and planets to the Earth's equatorial bulge, the rotational axis might be chaotically unstable, exhibiting chaotic changes over millions of years, as appears to be the case for Mars.[149]

is this really accurate---at least as far as the reference to Mars is concerned? I can't find any reference to it in the Mars article, for example.

H870rce (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm updating this section to reflect recent research.

H870rce (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also removing the reference to Mars.

H870rce (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Earth picture

Should this or could this be put in the article? http://news.yahoo.com/youve-never-seen-earth-181255927--abc-news-tech.html Joseph507357 (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The page is copyrighted. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The first section has a mistake.

"The Earth's axis of rotation is tilted 23.4°" This is incorrect. The actual tilt of Earth's axis of rotation is 23.5 degrees. http://science.jrank.org/pages/1304/Celestial-Sphere-Apparent-Motions-Sun-Moon-Planets-Stars.html -"Earth's axis is tilted approximately 23.5 degrees" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_(astronomy) -"Earth's...axis of rotation is inclined by about 23.5 degrees from the perpendicular (as compared to its orbital plane)" http://www.esse.ou.edu/fund_concepts/Fundamental_Concepts1/Solar_System/Earths_Rotation.htm -"Earth's rotation axis is currently tilted at ~23.5° with respect to the ecliptic axis," http://www.enotes.com/polar-axis-tilt-reference/polar-axis-tilt -"Earth's axis is tilted approximately 23.5 degrees to the plane of the ecliptic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin R. Lurie (talk • contribs) 01:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

All of those appear to be tertiary sources. Page 8 of Yoder (1995) gives the Earth's obliquity of the ecliptic (J2000) as +23° 26′ 21.4119″, which equals +23.4392°. The 2010 Nautical Almanac apparently lists it as 23.44°. The IAU Resolutions on Astronomical Reference Systems, Time Scales, and Earth Rotation Models (2005) p. 40 lists it as 23° 26′ 21.00406″, which equals +23.4392°. To me these seem like pretty authoritative sources. I'm not clear where why there is a difference in reporting the obliquity, but it doesn't look like this article is in error. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Internal linking

There is no link to the earth radius page, and it should be included in the Infobox. I can't edit since the article is protected. Frlara (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right but the infobox is a template that's used for all planets. Near as I can tell, we can't link to it without affecting the other articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

One possibility is to request a modification to the Infobox Planet template so that it includes a "mean_radius_article" parameter (or some such). The template can then be modified to link the "Mean radius" row title to the "mean_radius_article" article if the parameter exists. This shouldn't impact the other planet articles since the template logic should cause the "Mean radius" row title to revert to the unlinked form if the link parameter isn't set. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 June 2012

Hello! The first sentence "Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun, and the densest and fifth-largest of the eight planets in the Solar System." The earth is fourth-largest planet in the Solar System. I'm assuming that's a remain from when Pluto was still considered a planet? Or then I'm just misunderstanding the sentence. Cheerio!

Murreh (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus are all larger than Earth. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether the Earth is fourth- of fifth-largest completely depends on whether the planets are ordered from largest to smallest or smallest to largest. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be fifth-largest and fourth-smallest? --Patteroast (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Formation of Earth added to Infobox?

Any thoughts on adding "Formed: 4.54 billion years ago" to the infobox? I know it is in the second paragraph but I think it is a key fact that would deserve a place in the summary.Nozzleberry (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It is conspicuous in the lead section. Why does it need to be in the infobox as well? Should we put the entire article in the infobox and have done with it?--Charles (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. However, I feel the the usefulness of the infobox is that you always know that you can look at it directly to get the absolutely key information. So I personally think that the formation date should be there to add weight to this convention. Just a thought.Nozzleberry (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It would matter more if it was a distinguishing factor. But all of the planets in the Solar System formed at about the same time. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That is true, but personally I think all of the planets should have this information present as well, even though it is the same for all of them. Many people will read the article without wanting to compare it with anything, just because they want to know about about the specific planet they are looking at.Nozzleberry (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Infobox: adjective for Earth

All the other infoboxes in the other planets' Wiki pages contain an Adjective field (for example: Martian, Venusian, Jovian) and the moon includes its adjectives (Lunar, Selenic). Although there is no single accepted English adjective for Earth, there are nonetheless several widely accepted adjectives used in modern speech and should be included as part of the article's infobox. I have identified five that I believe pass muster:

Earthan, Earthian, Earther, Earthling, Terran

Human and Earth-man/woman are NOT acceptable because they refer to a particular species (homo sapiens), and cannot be used as an adjective to any creature or object from Earth. I hope whoever has authority to edit the infobox will see a value to adding this field. Thanks! RoyalxOptimum (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of adjective. An adjective is a qualifier of a noun, not a name for an inhabitant. So if we need to fill this space, it might be terrestrial. −Woodstone (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at the infoboxes for Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus. All of them use the term Adjective for the descriptor field in the infobox. I will concede that Earther and Earthling should be removed from the list; but the other terms can be used under your analysis. For example: Earthan stone, Earthian atmosphere, Terran environment. However, terrestrial would indeed be an acceptable addition to the Adjective field list.RoyalxOptimum (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever seen the terms 'Earthan', 'Earthian', or 'Earther' before... definitely not in any scientific literature. I can agree with the usage 'earthen' in say, an earthen wall or dam or pottery, but I'd say that refers to earth as in soil, not as in the planet. Most of the uses of Terran (and Earthling) I've heard were in science fiction, but it at least has some merit. The only term suggested that I've heard used in the context is Terrestrial. I would say 'the terrestrial atmosphere', or more likely just avoid the issue and say 'Earth's atmosphere'. You'd have to be careful in that case, because just any 'terrestrial atmosphere' could refer to any of the terrestrial planets.

I don't have the time to check myself at the moment, but I'd be very surprised if there wasn't some discussion about this in the archives for this talk page. --Patteroast (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, a quick search for 'adjective' brought up at least three previous discussions: Talk:Earth/Archive_3#Adjective, Talk:Earth/Archive_9#Earth.27s_Adjectives, Talk:Earth/Archive_12#adjectives. --Patteroast (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the those previous discussions, I think this discussion is more vibrant and comprehensive and enlightening than they were. I'm being convinced that my suggestions aren't sufficient and am settling on Woodstone's suggestion of Terrestrial over all the other terms (since like Luna or Jove it is utilizing the original Latin name). However, "terrestrial" is used to describe any rocky planet, not solely Earth, but this doesn't disqualify it when used as a proper noun, as opposed to a regular noun. That is, "Terrestrial" (capital "T") would refer exclusively to the Earth, whereas "terrestrial" (lowercase "t") would refer to Earth-like things. Wikipedia already makes the same differentiation in capitalization for jovian planets (lowercase "j") for gas giants over Jovian (capital "J") for Jupiter exclusively. Terrestrial--I like it. --RoyalxOptimum (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A goddess?

I've fallen off my chair, but recovered: how or where in earth is consensus that "earth" should be capitalised into "Earth"? Is it a goddess? -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Of the reasons why Earth should be capitalised, "it's a goddess" probably comes a little way below "it's a proper noun". You might bury something in the earth, but you live on Earth. To my mind there's no question at all that it should carry a capital letter: I'd need to be convinced that there were any good reasons for it not to. - T'Kitr (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the main reason is because it's a place name. The same as when we talk of going to Mars or the Moon or France or Florida. --Patteroast (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite convincing you both. Actually, there is a MOS on this: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Celestial_bodies. It says:

The words sun [sic], earth [sic], moon [sic] and solar system are capitalized (as proper nouns). Yea sure they are capitalised.

They are not capitalized when used outside an astronomical context. for T'Kitr.

And other assorted semi-logical nonsense like Io is a moon of Jupiter.

Have fun with this astrological nonsense. -DePiep (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? The MoS didn't make this up from nowhere, it's reflecting actual usage. The four terms that weren't capitalized in the bit you quoted also have usages where it's more proper to leave them not capitalized. When speaking of other stars, we can refer to them as suns. When speaking of other natural satellites, we call them moons. We live in the Solar System, but other stars with planetary systems could be called other 'solar systems', although that is usually avoided by using the term planetary system. And earth means soil or dirt. On the other hand, Earth is the name for a place. As is the Moon, and the Sun. Nothing you quoted was contradictory, and I'm really not sure what you're going on about with astrology. This discussion doesn't seem to have any relevance to this article... --Patteroast (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

For starters, MOS says: The words sun [...] are capitalized (as proper nouns). What else to say? -DePiep (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Second: [MOS] it's reflecting actual usage: turnaround. It is dictating current usage. That is how I found out. -DePiep (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

'Sun' is not being used as a proper noun in that sentence. But whatever... so the MoS could be written more clearly. I can't say I'd read it before now, myself. Capitalizing the names of planets when they're being used as a place or object is a useful distinction that's been around since before Wikipedia. I was just trying to explain what the distinction is for, because it's certainly nothing to do with astrology or anything like that. If you have an issue with the wording of the MoS, go take it up on that page. --Patteroast (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We agree. The rules are inexplicable (I say: nonsensical, or astrological). ~For example: our MOS does not note the usage of "the" in earth issues. -DePiep (talk)

I don't agree. Please don't misrepresent what I'm saying. I've explained several times here what the 'rule' is for. I'm not talking about a rule in terms of the Manual of Style on Wikipedia, I mean the 'rule' in the English language, as much as you can really say there are any rules in the mess that is English. If you feel the Manual of Style on Wikipedia explains and enforces that poorly, then go do something about that. If anything, I feel the capitalization standard is anti-astrological, as it indicates that the objects in question are places that a person could go to, not a mystical idea. As for why we use 'the' before some of those words, I can't say. I'm not a linguist. But English has many longstanding irregularities, and it is definitely not a logical construct. --Patteroast (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style (fourteenth edition, 7.115) states

The names earth, sun, and moon are often lowercased, but when used as the names of specific bodies in the solar system they are properly capitalized, as are the names Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the rest.

More to the point for this article: The IAU states in Naming Astronomical Objects

The IAU formally recommends that the initial letters of the names of individual astronomical objects should be printed as capitals (see the IAU Style Manual, Trans. Int. Astron. Union, volume 20B, 1989; Chapter [6], page S30); e.g., Earth, Sun, Moon, etc. "The Earth's equator" and "Earth is a planet in the Solar System" are examples of correct spelling according to these rules.

— Joe Kress (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style also provides guidance on the usage of "the" in the next two sentences of 7.115:

When Earth is used in this way, it is not preceded by an article. Sun and Moon, however, even when capitalized, are preceded by the definite article.

"On that day, Earth passed between the Sun and the Moon."

— Joe Kress (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

re Patteroast: oh well so we do not agree. I won't (mis)represent what you are saying again. Now can you please stop stepping around from Wikipedia "actual usage" to Wikipedia MoS to English language to what's next as your guide. And you do not have to tell me to change the MoS (a MoS you are not interested in, but only recently). So I learned that there are "rules", but we just cant count on them. I think my use of "astrological" is quite to the point. -DePiep (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you're after here. Your question has been answered several times; Earth is a planet, earth is dirt. All the sources mentioned here agree on that. Debating the semantics of what is proper English doesn't help this article in any way. If you want to call me an astrologer, which I rather take offense to, just because I use the spelling conventions used in scientific literature... well, good for you, I guess? You don't seem satisfied with people trying to answer your questions, and this discussion doesn't help improve the article in question, so I don't see any point to continuing on with it. --Patteroast (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fix moon picture

Picture of moon earth diagram depicts moon too large. Confusing. Moon is a fraction smaller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.65.79.114 (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

'The Earth' phrase

I removed '(or the Earth)' from the "top of the article" because it is linguistics, grammar, as per the talk page comments by Patteroast in the "A goddess?" section.

The phrase was re-added in section Cultural viewpoint, per Searle, et. al., who may confirm that language and the like metaphysical holdings are "Institutional", and cultural facts. So grammar is a cultural fact, a (healthy?) consensus, not really pertaining to becoming scientific, objective of the subject "third planet", as we must want if we are to be sustainable in freedom from prejudice, as disinterested, good-natured pure observers, or so it often seems, the neutral party in objective reporting.

The edit was inspired by DePiep's "A goddess?" on the above-linked talk-page, and by the subtle suggestion Names of newspapers and journals. Do not, however, capitalize the word the, even when it is part of the newspaper's title: the Hartford Courant.. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 00:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm in favor of your removal, as I find it redundant to include a parenthetical reference to the definite form, but I find the addition awkward. Following this, the etymology section for London should begin 'The name London (or title the London)', following from the Times example. I don't find it fits here; the word Earth derives from the Anglo-Saxon 'Eorðe' (a separate issue, in that the word did not change to Eorthe later, but the method of writing the 'th' sound in English changed), but the phrase 'the Earth' derives from the old English 'seo eorðe'; in other words the etymology of 'the' (and the loss of its masculine/feminine/neuter forms) is unrelated to that of 'Earth'. I'm not sure there is any need to keep a separate reference to 'the Earth'; as with all nouns, we sometimes use it with the definite article, sometimes without. I won't edit now, but leave it up for discussion. StephenHudson (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean. We never say "the Mars" or "the Jupiter", at least not in English. Earth is the only planet for which this alternative exists. Serendi^podous 20:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

planets no, but there is 'the sun' & 'the moon'. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 21:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

However, we don't also call them "Sun" and "Moon". Serendi^podous 22:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You are mixing apples and oranges. Consider Ganymede (the biggest moon of Jupiter): You would say “Ganymede’s surface”, not “the Ganymede’s surface”, but when talking just about that moon, you would say “the moon’s surface” or could say “the moon Ganymede’s surface”. ~Kaimbridge~ (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of the difference between the proper-noun-ness "the calculus", or "the general semantics" with the common-noun-ness "calculus", or "general semantics". We all want to fit in and be proper, and say what's proper for it's own sake, whatever that might mean for the times, relative to the ever-changing rules of happiness. — CpiralCpiral 01:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Philosophers can never tire of "how, when we say" things, what are the the psychological implications. What I meant by removing the phrase '(or the Earth)' was that it is unsettling to read a subtle philosophical parenthetical, alien to most readers. The intro should refrain from explicit esoterica, so that the distinction 'Earth' or 'the Earth' is in the body. — CpiralCpiral 01:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, this article should decide whether it wants to use "Earth" or "the Earth", because right now it uses both. Serendi^podous 06:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it should start with "The Earth" because it honors our common presence, and continue using "the Earth" unless we need a more "scientific-disinterest stance" like "The earth is experiencing mass extinctions." or "One day the Sun will melt the earth." — CpiralCpiral 10:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is it has been acceptably used interchangeably. If you want to standardize it, and it should be, use “Earth” strictly as a proper name (would you say “The Bob’s feet are itchy”? Of course not!) and “the planet” for “the Earth” (“the man’s feet are itchy”). PERIOD! P=)

So it would either be “Earth’s atmosphere” or “the planet’s atmosphere”. Using “the Sun” and “the Moon” as references is misleading, because they are generics elevated to specific proper nouns: Being consistent, you would use “the Planet”. Thus, extending the above example, it would be “the planet’s atmosphere”, “the sun’s atmosphere”, “the moon’s atmosphere”; or, “Earth’s atmosphere”, “the Planet’s atmosphere”, “the Sun’s atmosphere”, “the Moon’s atmosphere”.  ~Kaimbridge~ (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Either "Earth's atmosphere" or "the Earth's atmosphere" are acceptable, understandable English. Prescribing "consistency" will lead to some stilted writing. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the spoken version

I post the following in a spirit of helpfulness:

This is a non-emotional, calm and helpful appeal to all users, including myself regarding etiquette, civility and protocol regarding disagreements.

If you have a problem with this recording, I certainly don't mind constructive criticsm. However if you want a person to hear you, you have to make that person WANT to hear you. No berating, no condescending language, no insults. I will gladly change any part of this recording you wish.

Keep in mind though, these Spoken Articles are for

1. The visually impaired 2. English language learners who can understand spoken English and not written English (which makes an etymology section, for example, incredibly confusing). 3. Auditory Learners

This is who I geared the Spoken Article toward. According to the Wikipedia Guidelines

"These rules are a guideline only. If the rules prevent you from improving or producing a recording, ignore them."

Considering the target audience of these recordings, reading info boxes, picture captions, references, these are utterly confusing and so I eliminated these from the recordings.

Here's a good example. Here's a paragraph from the article:

In general English usage, the name earth can be capitalized or spelled in lowercase interchangeably, either when used absolutely or prefixed with "the" (i.e. "Earth", "the Earth", "earth", or "the earth"). Many deliberately spell the name of the planet with a capital, both as "Earth" or "the Earth". This is to distinguish it as a proper noun, distinct from the senses of the term as a count noun or verb (e.g. referring to soil, the ground, earthing in the electrical sense, etc.). Oxford spelling recognizes the lowercase form as the most common, with the capitalized form as a variant of it. Another convention that is very common is to spell the name with a capital when occurring absolutely (e.g. Earth's atmosphere) and lowercase when preceded by "the" (e.g. the atmosphere of the earth). The term almost exclusively exists in lowercase when appearing in common phrases, even without "the" preceding it (e.g. "It does not cost the earth.", "What on earth are you doing?").

If you read this out loud, it is challenging at the least. For the target audience, it is a guarantee that they will be lost. The idea of this encyclopedia is to make knowledge accessible. I've simply modified the paragraph for the sake of reading comprehension. Strangely, this is the section that Cprial claims I removed, yet it's in the recording.

Personally, I think this entire paragraph should be moved somewhere else in the article for the sake of reading comprehension.

I urge you to consider, again; if you want a person to be heard, you have to make them want to be heard. Thank you for this consideration.

Marmenta (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Name and etymology section deleted 80 days ago

I've since restored the section. As with any topic, terminology is crucial, and perfectly on topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Good save. Vandalism averages 15 min, but Marmenta seemed to be on a nine-hour editing marathon when he did section blanking. Another edit on that accident (prone?) session removed an informative phrase: Aided by the absorption of harmful ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, formerly ocean-confined life was able to colonize the land surface of Earth. (Does swimming protect from sunburn? Do clouds?) The number of watchers is ten times a typical amount, but I guess the 1100 watchers numb after trusting a noticed editor-style rather than noticing the number of characters and the time intervals involved per every edit. — CpiralCpiral 10:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• 22:59, 20 June 2012‎ Marmenta (talk | contribs)‎ . . (136,737 bytes) (+222)‎ . . (→‎External links)
• 22:38, 20 June 2012‎ Marmenta (talk | contribs)‎ . . (136,515 bytes) (-3,807)‎ . .  Done
• 22:11, 20 June 2012‎ Marmenta (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,322 bytes) (+221)‎ . . (→‎External links)
• 19:39, 20 June 2012‎ Marmenta (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,101 bytes) (-186)‎ . . (→‎External links)
• 16:51, 20 June 2012‎ Marmenta (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,287 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎External links)
• 16:21, 20 June 2012‎ Marmenta (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,287 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎External links)
• 14:18, 20 June 2012‎ Marmenta (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,285 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎External links)
• 14:16, 20 June 2012‎ Marmenta (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,285 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎External links)
• 13:51, 20 June 2012‎ Marmenta (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,285 bytes) (-8)‎ . .  Done
• 03:26, 20 June 2012‎ Marmenta (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,293 bytes) (+193)‎ . . (→‎External links)
• 03:19, 20 June 2012‎ Marmenta (talk | contribs)‎ . . (140,100 bytes) (-75)‎ . .  Done

At 22:38 on June 20, eight good faith edits were made to the lead section, but I have decided to restore five of them for now until pointed discussion warrants individual restoral:

• restored note that said "The Earth's circumference is (almost) exactly 40,000 km because the metre was calibrated based precisely on this measurement – more specifically, 1/10-millionth of the distance between the poles and the equator."
• Reverted from/to
  • Earth formed 4.54 billion years ago, and life appeared on its surface within one billion years.
  • Earth formed approximately 4.54 billion years ago by accretion from the solar nebula, and life appeared on its surface within one billion years.
• years is overlinking per WP:OVERLINK
• reverted "during this period" for clarity. There seems to be no particular interval of time it could refer to in the context for which it was intended to clarify.
• reverted back to "crust" from "outer surface". The crust is many miles deep.
• Reverted from/to
  • Earth's biosphere has significantly altered the atmosphere and other abiotic conditions on the planet, enabling the proliferation of aerobic organisms as well as the formation of the ozone layer which, together with Earth's magnetic field, blocks harmful solar radiation, permitting life on land.
  • Earth's biosphere has significantly altered the atmosphere and other abiotic conditions on the planet, enabling the proliferation of aerobic organisms as well as the formation of the ozone layer, which together with Earth's magnetic field blocks harmful solar radiation, thus permitting formerly ocean-confined life to move safely to land.

In addition I made some copy edits. The significant ones are:

• changed 'a mere 500 million years' to '500 million years' (for the minimum estimated time Earth can sustain life) "Mere" seems facetious. 500 million years is a long time, not a "mere" amount of time, unless the Earth itself is doing the reading or the writing of this articulation.
• The sentence about the polar ice had some unnecessary and ill-formed parentheticals I tried to correct by rewording.
• The paragraph concerning the Moon was a back-and-forth mesh of referral clauses, which I made sentences out of. The salient fact is that the moon is the only satellite. The fact that there could other natural satellites that are not "known" is for the article on the Moon. So I took the word "known" out. Also, the Moon does not "provide" the tides, the ocean does. The moon "stimulates" the tides. Any better ideas for "provides" than "stimulates"?
• The cadence of the last sentence was reset. The clauses were made to have a sort of similar rhythm. Concerning the rephrasing of the last clause, the Gaia Principle is Lovelock's and he thinks Earth is an organism. I put that word in. Lewis Thomas may disagree, but the Gaia Principle is not his theory. The balancing arguments in the article against "organism" are good print, but fail in light of Daniel Dennett's explanation that—for some examples, the robotic ignorance of motor proton and the neural tissue neverthess generate behavior that eventuates in living cells and in consciousness— "competence does not need to understand." The Gaia hypothesis was there to copy edit. I did so.

At 08:11 on 25 July 2010 HJ Mitchell changed the protection level of Earth‎ to Highly visible page. This did not seem to help the 1100 watchers to discover a section had been blanked on June 20 of 2012. It remained blank until somehow :bloodofox: restored the section. How did he do it? I'm tempted to be WOWed, but... Ted Nelson in his "Intertwingularity" lectures "When Ideas Collide, 515", minute 4 mentions Richard Dawkins as portraying Wikipedia articles to gravitate towards mid-class, saying "It's a miracle" there are featured articles, and not to expect articles to get better on average. Why does Ted Nelson agree? Because the status Wikipedia is like that of the Casino Jail, he says. That jail, he says, the environment for change, the talk page, is where brutality allows "slash and burn". And in the same spirit of Ted, I'll say jokingly that HJ Mitchell suspected a Wikipedia:List_of_cabals#Capitalist_Cabal against Earth.

I don't say the past is evil, I say the past is creation, and creation is good. But I do say that planning or allowing to become what we personally believe to be wrong is the only evil. As soon as it is actually done though, it's forgiven. Why cry over spilled milk? See no evil? Hear no evil? Speak no evil? Happy editing! There is no cabal. — CpiralCpiral 07:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Update of Surface temperature

New highest temperature ever: 56.7 degree Celsius ( 134 F ). World record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.121.239 (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Discredited. For something that can be put into Global warming, one would have to do something for example, like consult the wise professions of the highly respected Professor William H. Calvin. His books would be great to add to that other article. Or quote his videos, and put your quotes in that other article. It's easy. Just pick a section there, edit it, type the quote into the edit page, and put after it something like <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj6HKmNK9ng] minute four.</ref>.

Why not WP:SIGNUP first? What will be your user name? How about User:StillTime? — CpiralCpiral 07:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Reformation

I thoroughly edited the Formation section. I mostly reworded (copy edited), but in many cases added content. I moved sentences. Every paragraph seemed to need some heavy editing for clarity, completeness and focus. In order, and opened for discussion:

Accretion paragraph:

• numbers changed to less scientific form 4.50-4.58 to aid comprehension and comparison to other numbers there
• units changed to bya; The use of Ga and Ma was changed to bya and mya throughout. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Mya_and_bya. For consistency the entire article must follow, of course.
• Added links 'planetesimals', 'circumstellar disk', 'primordial nuclides', 'granular material', 'section Formation of planets of Formation and evolution of the Solar System
• added concept and link to 'cohesion'
• added term 'primordial'

Moon paragraph:

• moved material out to other paragraphs
• stress the hypothetical aspect, it being most pronounced here as compared to the other formations more theoretical nature

Atmosphere and oceans paragraph:

• remove Trans-Neptunian objects. They don't path to Earth, but orbit way out there?
• change 'present day luminosity" to just "luminosity" for lucidity (fewer words, obvious assumption)

Crust paragraph:

• added 'a process ultimately driven by the continuous loss of heat from the earth's interior'
• link 'plate tectonics'

Certainly more work remains to be done here. Some of the citation references may be too crowded or misplaced. I may have forgotten to mention some changes. Happy editing! — CpiralCpiral 22:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic editing!!!! Good job!

Marmenta (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reformation: Bya and mya

I was changing all the Ma to mya (and Ga to bya) in the article when I realized {{val}} is not MOS compliant for "yr". Besides that MOS just started advocating for mya and bya an hour ago. My boldness there must cool there somewhat before it solidifies there for WP:MOS. So I temporarily must revert the edits here (see above) until val is fixed and while MOS cools. Yet discussion may proceed from the proposal. — CpiralCpiral 23:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I prepped {{val}} for "yr", (and BC, AD, BCE, and CE) and am ready to post the above proposal for the section Formation, and then go on to make the rest of the article say mya and bya instead of Ma and Ga, if there is consensus here.

Are there any objections to my proposed change Ga to bya and Ma to mya? See all of my reasons for facilitating that change to the preference for mya and bya at the talk page of the MOS. (It's long, but there is an executive summary. One reason is that mya and bya could be better for the third-grader audience.) The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Year_numbering_systems says to use mya and bya, but that change was only made on the 18th from discussions that proceeded on the 17th. — CpiralCpiral 08:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Proposal is published. Ma and Ga are converted. Perhaps the parentheticals for bya, mya, byr, and myr are a bit overdone, for I added them at the beginning of most sections. There remains a lot of room for improvement. Happy editing! — CpiralCpiral 02:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request regarding thermal energy

Ii propose changing a sentence in "Upper Atmosphere" for the sake of grammar.

Second paragraph, first sentence:

Thermal energy causes some of the molecules at the outer edge of the Earth's atmosphere have their velocity increased to the point where they can escape from the planet's gravity.

to

Thermal energy causes some of the molecules at the outer edge of the Earth's atmosphere to increase their velocity to the point where they can escape from the planet's gravity.

Tkphelps (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, both of those seem awkward to me. How about instead:

Thermal energy increases the velocity of some molecules in the upper atmosphere to the point where they escape from the planet's gravity.

or

Some molecules in the upper atmosphere reach escape velocity due to thermal energy.

Either one of those is more concise. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done as requested. The wording my still not be perfect, but it's better than what it was. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

ambiguous contents about diameter of the earth

The first paragraph of section "Shape" contains "The average diameter of the reference spheroid is about 12,742 km ...". I'm not sure what the phrase "The average diameter" refers to. Whether it is an average between a diameter on the equator plan and a diameter measured from the north to the south poles or just an average of all various diameters within the equator plan. Would it be more eraborate if the content shows both the diameters ie., one along the revolution axis and the other one on the equator plan. Thank you.Wijit (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Typically, you start with the best estimates you can find for the average equatorial radius and the average polar radius and then you calculate the final average assuming the earth is a perfect ellipsoid. Because all of the meridians of an ideal ellipsoid are indistinguishable, the average radius of the ellipsoid is the same as the average radius of any one of the meridian ellipses.

For a list of calculated Earth radii look under the Mr column of the table on this page: http://math.wikia.com/wiki/Ellipsoidal_quadratic_mean_radius

For a longer list of reference ellipsoids used throughout history and in different circumstances see the Figure of the Earth article. Wakebrdkid (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Orbit

I had to re-read the sentence 'which is fast enough to cover the planet's diameter ... ' a few times to understand what was meant.
A better phrase could be ' which is fast enough to traverse the planet's diameter ...
Mljmeerman (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Changed to "travel a distance equal to..." for clarity. Vsmith (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

co2

co2 in the atmosphere is saying 0.038% , shouldn't this be 0.00039%? as in 390 ppm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.61.166 (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Updated and added CO2 specific reference since it needs regular updates. StephenHudson (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Woops, actually missed your main point. 390 ppm is 390/1,000,000 = 0.00039, that's the fraction of the atm that's CO2, to express in percent, you multiply by 100, giving 0.039. Alternatively, % is pp-hundred, so divide 390 by 1,000,000/100, or 10,000. StephenHudson (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Surface area

in section 3.6 "Surface" the reference [99] was misread:

The Earth's terrain varies greatly from place to place. About 70.8%[98] of the surface is covered by water, with much of the continental shelf below sea level. This equates to 148.94 million km2 (57.51 million sq mi).[99] The submerged surface has mountainous features, including a globe-spanning mid-ocean ridge system, as well as undersea volcanoes,[68] oceanic trenches, submarine canyons, oceanic plateaus and abyssal plains. The remaining 29.2% not covered by water consists of mountains, deserts, plains, plateaus, and other geomorphologies.

should read:

The Earth's terrain varies greatly from place to place. About 70.8%[98] of the surface is covered by water, with much of the continental shelf below sea level. This equates to 361.132 million km2 (139.43 million sq mi).[99] The submerged surface has mountainous features, including a globe-spanning mid-ocean ridge system, as well as undersea volcanoes,[68] oceanic trenches, submarine canyons, oceanic plateaus and abyssal plains. The remaining 29.2% (148.94 million km2) not covered by water consists of mountains, deserts, plains, plateaus, and other geomorphologies.

(also adding the land area after 29.2% is helpful)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazzafunk (talk • contribs) 01:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Done Spacepotato (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Changing "Moon" section to "Moon, asteroids, and artificial satellites"

I made the following diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earth&diff=531238659&oldid=529873867 and was reverted by user:Ckatz. Let's discuss here. Is it an improvement to break the "Moon" section into subsections and add information about artificial satellites? I have restored my changes for the moment since the reason given for the revert diff didn't provide me much specific and helpful feedback. I've pinged Ckatz on their talk page. --Pine^✉ 09:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think my primary concern would be that the Moon is, relative to the other topics, significantly more important from both a scientific and cultural perspective that it does not make sense to (in essence) marginalize it by retitling the section in that manner. Perhaps, instead, consider having asteroids and artificial satellites as a sub-section, or a stand-alone section? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I say that the International Space Station and the possibility of Earth being devastated by an asteroid are also topics of significant interest and are related to the moon in the sense that they are all objects in orbit or that cross Earth's orbit. However, having two sections, one for the Moon and one for asteroids and satellites, also seems acceptable to me, so I'll agree with your latest organization of those subjects. Thank you. --Pine^✉ 22:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request (highest temperature update)

Please change the highest temperature recorded (in the box on the right) from 57.8C to 56.7C. The cited page (http://wmo.asu.edu/world-highest-temperature) contains an explanation for the change. 130.102.158.16 (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. I calculated the Kelvin (well, my computer did) and rounded 329.85 up to 330. (The source lists only Celsius and Fahrenheit.) Rivertorch (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2013

In the etymology section of this article, "earth" is described as a "count" noun. I believe this should be "non-count", as this describes nouns which cannot be "pluralized" (such as soil, the example also given parenthetically in the article). 206.54.192.116 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 22:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I read here and here, the "non-count" term you seem to be looking for is "mass noun". I'm no expert, but after reading those two articles, if I had to guess, I'd call earth a "count noun". Just my take. – Paine (Climax!)  03:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Typo

Edit request: hope I'm not being sloppy or inappropriate here, but edit request, since this is the first "locked" page I've tried to mess with. Just a minor typo issue: "star reaches it maximum radius." should be "its" Yes, minutiae, like you & me.

Thanks for spotting that - now fixed. Mikenorton (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Conversion

Editor Ckatz, you have reverted my conversion edits twice. Rather than put you in a 3RR choice position, we can discuss it here, please. There are a lot of people who come to read this encyclopedia who do not think in "metric system". It is a whole different language for us. If you say "310 kilometers", we have no idea how far that is. We think in miles, mph, and so forth as in 310 kilometres (190 miles). Now our minds can visualize that distance and compare it with known distances to facilitate understanding of what a distance of 310km actually means. For us, it's the same as saying something in another language, such as "Tenayistaleyn", and then telling us that it means "Hello" in the Amharic language.

Your most recent edit summary states "rm conversions per convention with astronomy articles". This must mean either that other astronomy articles, by convention, state distances, speeds and other parameters only in metric units, or it may mean that astronomy articles use one or the other, metric or US customary units, but not both. If either of those are the "convention", then I have to ask: Are we to stay with convention at the expense of understanding? Which of those, understanding or convention, do you feel is more important to our readers? – Paine (Climax!)  21:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the conversions in this context. They are reader-friendly and do no harm that I can see. It may also be worth noting that Earth is more than just an astronomy article. Rivertorch (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of this issue, Rivertorch. – Paine (Climax!)  23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Payne, good to hear from you. With respect to the avoidance of US customary units, and conversion to same, this is a long-standing convention within the astronomy articles. The matter has been questioned on several occasions, with points much like what you have made, but each time the outcome was to maintain the existing practice in line with what is done in scientific circles (including the US). --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, "in scientific circles"? Isn't Wikipedia here for non-scientists as well as for scientists? It sounds as if Wikipedia is trying to force people to think in metric units, i.e., in terms to which they are not accustomed. This is a convention that cries out for revisitation. An RfC may be needed to inject new juice into the issue. This appears to be an example of Wikipedia convention that goes against NPOV, and I find it remarkable that it has stood for as long as you indicate it has. I just noticed this edit and this edit in the Moon article. The figures you reverted had been placed there by two different editors. To maintain this convention seems to be a neverending battle for you. It seems that people are trying to tell you something. – Paine (Climax!)  06:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it would be more helpful, Ckatz, if you'd substantively address the points that Paine Ellsworth and I have made. There is no hard-and-fast rule governing the question, afaik, or even anything definitive in the MOS. Just because it's generally done one way in astronomy articles doesn't mean it must be done that way in all astronomy articles. As I noted above, Earth isn't merely an "astronomy article"; it's relevant to several scientific disciplines and is also what might be called a major general-interest article with a broad scope. It's no hardship for many of us to convert kilometres to miles; math-challenged though I am, I can even come up with a serviceable estimate in my head if I need to, although I am relatively comfortable with metric units to begin with. But for many readers, the extra step of making the conversion is distracting and gets in the way of grasping the significance of the text at first reading. Providing the conversions would remedy that. Other than falling foul of a long-standing convention, is there any disadvantage to including the conversions of which you're aware? Rivertorch (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The matter has been questioned on several occasions, with points much like what you have made, but each time the outcome was to maintain the existing practice . . .

Were these informal discussions? Were there one or more RfCs on the subject? Has this issue ever been brought before the NPOV noticeboard? I've noticed that it would be a major undertaking to tackle all instances of unconverted metric usage, e.g. its extensive practice in iboxes. Could the desire to maintain the status quo be partially motivated by this? – Paine (Climax!)  07:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Per the Manual of Style, "In science-related articles: generally use only SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, and specialized units that are used in some sciences. US Customary and imperial units are not required.". --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss the words "generally" and "not required" (my emphasis) in what you quoted above? I'm going to ask once more, this time in simplified language: can you explain how using the conversions hurts the article? If you can, then perhaps the discussion can take on constructive properties and ultimately move towards consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The decision whether or not to use conversions in this article must rest with the definition of a "science-related article". This article does cover some science-related subjects, however it also covers culture-related and other non-science-related subjects, both within the article itself and in some of the Navbars. Rivertorch mentioned that this is more than just an astronomy article, and I submit that it is also more than just a science article. So the question is, "Where do we draw the line?". We should note as well that the MOS is a guideline, not a policy. WP:UNIT may not apply to articles that are composed of both science-related and non-science-related parts. – Paine (Climax!)  12:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

PS. From the Lede of that guideline: The goal is to make the whole encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use. Try to write so the text cannot be misunderstood, and take account of what is likely to be familiar to readers—the less they have to look up definitions, the easier it is to be understood.

• Since the discussion has halted, with my questions left unanswered, I was feeling bold and was going to restore the conversions. However, I noticed that this edit which removed the conversions also changed one of the figures—the one for diameter. These figures are sourced to a NASA fact sheet, which provides no figure for diameter but offers three different numbers for radius (equatorial, polar, and volumetric mean). I would think the volumetric mean would be the one we're after, but doubling it doesn't quite match with either the before or after figure in the diff. Rivertorch (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What we usually read when the diameter of Earth is described is "about 8,000" miles, so 12,742 kilometres (7,918 miles), which is the VMR value doubled, would certainly be an acceptable value and most correct in this context. And thank you for being bold! – Paine (Climax!)  07:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I just re-included the reverted conversions and learned something about the {{convert}} template: You do not have to stick with seconds, as in km/s→mi/s. That template will convert from km/s→mi/hr directly! Learn something new everyday here on Wikipedia! – Paine (Climax!)  23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Good job. Sorry, this had sort of dropped off my radar screen. Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! From reading the /doc page of that template, it looks like it's still a WIP, and the involved editors still look for ways to make it better, which means that the /doc page might not show everything the template can do. Thank "the heavens" for the code experts, though, eh? – Paine (Climax!)  21:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a reason "code" is a four-letter word. ;) Rivertorch (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The conversions were removed, again, as there is hardly consensus here (2 editors) to ignore a long-established convention. Moreover, it makes no sense to ignore said convention for the purpose of changing one section. If you really disagree with this, than an RfC is the more appropriate means to get consensus. FYI, the updated values were left in place. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC is the way to go at this point if we want to pursue it. However, I don't believe that removing them (for the third time) was best practice. Please keep in mind that days went by with no further comment from you, and that you still haven't responded substantively to the points raised earlier in this thread. Conventions are all very well—I spend a fair amount of my time here enforcing them—but when editors make a cogent argument for not following a convention in a given case, I think it's preferable for those who disagree to address the substance of the arguments, including the specific points raised by the other side. Rivertorch (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, restoring them repeatedly would be the bigger concern per WP:BRD, especially given the established convention and - perhaps more importantly - the fact that it was only one section, therefore putting that section out of sync with the rest of the article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right on your last point: there should be internal consistency within the article. As for the earlier bit, I think the BRD model was working fairly smoothly at first, but then you appeared to abandon the discussion. No criticism implied—I think most of us get busy on other things from time to time and lose track of the fact that discussions we've been involved in are continuing without us. Now that you're "back", let's agree to disagree on our differing interpretations of the guidelines and their importance; if we go the RfC route, that can all be hammered out. I would, however, be grateful for your thoughts on this one point: do you believe that including conversions harms this article or diminishes the experience of this article's readers? If so, how? Rivertorch (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you Rivertorch and Ckatz! After giving this much thought and reading talk-page archives, like this one, I have gone from metrication opposition to support of metrication in the United States, and here on Wikipedia. Reading this helped, too. I suppose one has to think "globally" to see that using only SI units even in this article is not an NPOV issue. In fact, if we convert the entire article to conversions of this type, that just might be an NPOV issue on the global scale. Metrication seems inevitable, so as old as I am, I suppose I'll have to adjust. I may still draw the line at American football, though. 100 yards (91 metres) or 100 metres (109 yards) just doesn't work for me. – Paine (Climax!)  16:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, I'd like to ask you the same question I just asked Ckatz. I totally respect your changing your mind, and I don't intend to argue about it, but I'm curious to know. Rivertorch (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you believe that including conversions harms this article or diminishes the experience of this article's readers? If so, how?

The harm, if any, would be the possible NPOV issue that may be generated by including the conversions. This article may be read by anyone anywhere in the world, and the US is one of only three countries that still resists metrication. So for most of the world, the conversions might be superfluous and distracting, which may indeed diminish their reading experience. I'm sure there are other reasons that might be found by reading the past discussions that led to conventional usage of SI units in these articles. It does not seem to have been a decision-made-lightly. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^{C L I M A X !} 01:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! and thank you, Rivertorch, for your reasonings and support were all part of my learning process in this! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^{C L I M A X !} 13:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong source reference

The section "About 70.8%[99] of the surface is covered by water" links to wrong reference. The correct reference would be [13] instead of [99]. I cannot fix this because the article is semi-protected. -91.157.80.169 (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that - now fixed. Mikenorton (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Orbital plane

Is it possible to get measurements for the longitude of the ascending node in relation to the Invariable plane for all the planets, instead of these measurements in relation to the Earth's ecliptic?

Such a calculation must be possible, otherwise what else are the Earth's 349° (or –11°) based on? BigSteve (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on April 10, 2013

I am not expert on this topic, however the writing needs improvement. I list some problems I have with it as written. First, the most egregious - it is not even a sentence! - is found in the first paragraph (P1) of the Evolution of Life section (first sentence): >>"Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4.5 bya later the last common ancestor of all life existed."

1. 1. It is not the case that 4.5 bya self-replicating molecules are generally thought to have existed. Life formed within the first billion yearsand was established by 3.8 - 3.4 bya , that is all we know.
2. 2. The energy of the necessary chemical reactions is unknown. I assume the "highly energetic" comes from the spark chamber production of amino acids, but other processes, some of which are "mild" or "moderate" could have been all that was required. There is (as of today) NO mechanistic model, so to claim that this non-existent model requires "highly energetic chemistry" is wrong.
3. 3. CLEARLY there is some text missing. The last common ancestor comes in here from left field. Wikipedia has an article on the last universal common ancestor, which is postulated to have existed shortly after life arose (3.8 - 3.5 bya).

I suggest: "The process of chemical transformation which led to life, abiogenesis, is not understood. It is believed all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, thought to have been a bacterium. The three Domains of Life; Bacteria, Archaea, and the Eukaryotes, evolved from a last universal common ancestor soon after life arose, 3.8 - 3.4 bya."

Now in wading through the article to get to this point, I found numerous other problems, some of style, others more serious. I list them in sequence (Pn is paragraph n of the applicable section). Introduction:P2 >>"billion years ago" should be "billion years ago (bya)" and in the rest of article just bya, especially Introduction P4 where it is explained again. >>"Earth's biosphere then significantly altered the atmospheric and other basic physical conditions, which enabled the proliferation of organisms as well as the formation of the ozone layer, which together with Earth's magnetic field blocked harmful solar radiation, and permitted formerly ocean-confined life to move safely to land." Wow! Talk about a run-on sentence!! It claims that the biosphere enabled proliferation. This seems to be circular reasoning (isn't proliferated life, by definition, a biosphere?). How about "It is believed that life at first only existed under the ocean, protected from UV light. Earth's ocean-confined biota slowly changed the atmosphere's composition giving rise to the Ozone Layer and modified the surface temperature of the planet. The ozone layer, together with Earth's magnetic field, blocked harmful solar radiation and allowed life to spread to and thrive on the surface of both the ocean and land." (I note that a recent paper has conjectured that underground is also be a plausible first habitat. also note "safely" is really inappropriate here and "basic physical conditions" is really confusing - don't you mean the "chemical composition"?) It goes on to state that the physical properties of Earth have allowed life to persist. As compared to WHAT? Its spiritual properties? I do not think this is helpful - OF COURSE its properties allow life to exist! How does stating the obvious advance the article? And then given its "physical properties" it is redundant to say that its history has allowed it as well. Its physical state is the result of its history. This is confusing ontology. The fact is that there are a number of special circumstances which are unique to Earth: orbit, chemical composition, satellite, early collisions, Jupiter. It is obvious that the set of these is sufficient for Life, it is NOT obvious which elements of this set are necessary. Confusing cause and effect is not useful, imho. Introduction P3 >>lakes are a source of water?? nonsense! Lake water is the result of weather. They form part of the hydrologic cycle, pointing to any one component of that cycle as the "source" is foolish. >>"...sea ice that is the polar ice caps." Whew! another mangled sentence. suggest:"Earth's poles are mostly covered with ice; the Antarctic ice sheet and the polar ice packs." I'm not sure why sea ice is mentioned, but its clearly secondary to the ice packs. >>"a liquid outer core that generates the magnetic field" change to "an electrically conductive molten outer core that generates Earth's magnetic field." Introduction P4 It is claimed that the Moon began orbiting the Earth 4.53 bya. This statement is moot. The GIH does postulate that, but alternative models exist; and NONE of them are entirely satisfactory. I suggest: "The most popular hypothesis is that the Moon was formed from the collision between Earth and a Mar's sized planet 4.53 bya. This is known as the Great Impact Hypothesis (GIH)." Introduction P5 >>" Human cultures have developed many views of the planet..." I really think you should add the scientific view - I actually do not know what to call it - perhaps 'unexceptionalism' - that the Earth is a typical, but small, rocky planet, orbiting a typical star in a typical (but on the large side) galaxy and holds no special place in the Universe. Formation P1 >>"...therefore, it is inferred that the Earth must have been formed by accretion" This is wrong. It is inferred that the Earth must have formed around then, but NOT inferred that the Earth must have formed by accretion. There is a whole other body of evidence that leads to the conclusion that it formed by accretion. >>"In theory a solar nebula partitions a volume out of a molecular cloud by " The result of the partition causes the partition??? Who wrote this?? "partition" ?? partitions a volume? How about: "In theory, variations in density (caused by a combination of the galactic magnetic field, near-by stellar wind and gravitational effects, and supernova shock-waves) within a molecular cloud cause part of it to collapse into a solar nebula." >>" In nebular theory planetesimals commence forming as particulate accrues by ..." *sigh* I suggest:"In nebular theory, planetesimals start with dust particles colliding and clumping together, leading to increased gravitational attraction, leading to more and more accumulation of dust and other aggregates." >>"The assembly of the primordial Earth proceeded for 10–20 myr.[35] The Moon formed shortly thereafter, about 4.53 bya." This is one of many models. It should be identified as a possible model, especially the claim that the assembly took 10-20 myr and that the Moon formed 4.53 bya. It should also be noted that none of our current models are without major problems and inconsistencies. Formation P2 >>"The Moon's formation remains debated." Did a native English speaker write this?? suggest: "The way the Moon was formed remains controversial." >>"The working hypothesis is that it formed by accretion from material loosed from the Earth after a Mars-sized object dubbed Theia impacted with Earth" Suggest:"The popular Giant Impact Hypothesis is that the Moon formed from debris from the Earth/Theia impact." >>"In this scenario the mass of Theia is 10% of the Earth's mass,[38] it impacts with the Earth in a glancing blow,[39] and some of its mass merges with the Earth" *sigh* suggest "In the GIH scenario, Theia's mass is 10% of the Earth's,[38] the collision is glancing,[39] and some of Theia's material mixes into the Earth." >>"Between approximately 3.8 and 4.1 bya, numerous asteroid impacts during the Late Heavy Bombardment caused significant changes to the greater surface environment of the Moon, and by inference, to the Earth." *sigh* suggest:"The formation of the Moon was followed by a period of numerous asteroid impacts, called the Late Heavy Bombardment which caused significant changes to the surfaces of the Moon and the Earth. >>"Earth's atmosphere and oceans formed by volcanic activity and outgassing that included water vapor." suggest:"Gasses (water vapor, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and others) trapped in the hot interior of the Earth escaped (outgassing) via volcanic activity to form the atmosphere and then the oceans." >>"The origin of the world's oceans was condensation augmented by water and ice delivered by asteroids, proto-planets, and comets." suggest:"The world's oceans formed from the cooling and condensation of the water vapor in the atmosphere, as well as water and ice from asteroids, proto-planets, and comets." >> next sentence suggest changing "... only at 70% luminosity." to ""... only at 70% of its current luminosity." Formation P4 >>"A crust formed when the molten outer layer of the planet Earth cooled to form a solid as the accumulated water vapor began to act in the atmosphere." began to act???? no. suggest:"The Earth's crust formed as the molten surface cooled. This was helped by water's evaporation/condensation cycle taking heat from the surface into the atmosphere." >>"The two models[43] that explain land mass propose either a steady growth to the present-day forms[44] or, more likely, a rapid growth[45] early in Earth history[46] followed by a long-term steady continental area." I have NO idea what this sentence means. Why does "land mass" need explanation? I suspect this has been (badly) translated from some other language. Apparently it assumes (?? not my area) that we already know that "land mass" means (I am guessing) "dry land area". But what is the presumed initial state? Liquid water was not initially present, nor was solid rock. Clearly solid rock comes next. So, is the question what % of the Earth's surface, once it was solid, was submerged? I will take a wild leap (my apologies for this one, but I think as is it is bad enough to need immediate change) and suggest: "There are two models[43] that describe how dry land formed once the Earth had cooled sufficiently. One is a steady increase to the present-day 29% of the Earth being above water[44]. The other model describes rapid growth[45] of land area early in Earth history[46] followed by a steady value of continental landmass." I may have garbled area and landmass here... >>" On time scales lasting hundreds of millions of years, the supercontinents have formed and broken up three times. Roughly 750 mya (million years ago), one of the earliest known supercontinents, Rodinia, began to break apart. The continents later recombined to form Pannotia, 600–540 mya, then finally Pangaea, which also broke apart 180 mya.[50]" There are multiple problems with this section.

1. 1. "On time scales lasting..." I don't think "time scale" is correct here. Why not just "Over time periods of ..."
2. 2. "the supercontinents have formed and broken up three times." This is wrong:

Ur → Kenorland → Columbia → Rodinia → Pannotia → Pangea → etc. Except for Ur (3 bya) which might not be a supercontinent, there are at least 5 sets of supercontinents. Why aren't the first 3 mentioned??? Well, that's as far as I got.173.189.72.242 (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 April 2013

I wish that the latin name for earth, Tellus, should be mentioned in the article. 78.70.255.181 (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This is the english wikipedia - the interwiki links take those who are interested to the relevant page on other language wikipedias. No reason to include the name in Latin any more than in any of hundred or more other languages. Mikenorton (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

la:Tellus (planeta). Double sharp (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Earthlike

Should this discovery [9] of earth-like planets be mentioned here? Pass a Method talk 11:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about Earth. It is of no relevance if there are any other planets that resemble it. There used to be statements about alleged unique properties of Earth, but after long discussions they were removed. Now planets with some similarities are being discovered, that deserves equally little mention. −Woodstone (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please review the temperature unit listed in the subsection HEAT "At the center of the planet, the temperature may be up to 7,000 K (...)." Earth's internal temperature is approximately 7000 Celsius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabellabee (talk • contribs) 07:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, new information is 1000 degrees warmer than previously thought, at 6,000 C. http://www.esrf.eu/news/general/Earth-Center-Hotter/Earth-Centre-Hotter. I have corrected. Student7 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the Earth still considered a planet?

While the answer might seem obvious to a layperson, if we use a strict interpretation of the IAU's formal definition of a planet, then the Earth does not qualify as a planet because it has not "cleared the neighborhood" of more than 9,683 Near Earth Objects. And if that is not enough to tweak your melon consider this. If a dwarf planet is not a "real" planet, then is a dwarf star a "real" star? (Remember that our sun is a Yellow dwarf star.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6002:6:2C61:3E5E:5FF1:B83D (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the page to discuss improvements to the Earth article. If you are here to ask a question, please go to the reference desk. Thank you. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 19:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to respond anyway: that's not what "clearing the neighbourhood" is supposed to mean. It means that the planet gravitationally controls the orbits of the objects around it. Those NEOs are locked into their current orbits by the Earth, like Neptune and Pluto.

On your second point, that's just language (and perhaps "dwarf planet" is a less than ideal term, given its mental connotations). The problem is that you are analyzing it as two words: a noun "planet" modified by an adjective "dwarf". It's not. It's one noun "dwarf planet". "Dwarf star" is an adjective-noun compound, where the noun "star" is modified by the adjective "dwarf". Thus a dwarf star is a star and a dwarf planet is not a planet. Illogical perhaps, but not that hard to understand. Whether you agree with the term is a different issue (and personally I would like to see it changed), but the issue is classification, not so much terminology. Double sharp (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Article says ( right in the first line ) that Earth is 5th largest planet in our Solar system...

...shouldn't that say 4th?

largest is Jupiter, 2nd Saturn, 3rd Neptune, 4th Uranus, 5th Earth. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Illustration in the Formation section

The illustration in the Formation section appears to have little or nothing to do with the formation of the Earth, in violation of WP:IDD. I'd like to suggest replacing it with an image about the early solar system. For example:

• 
• 
• 
• File:Solarnebula.jpg

Praemonitus (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. For no particular reason, I like the fourth of those images you suggest. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead summary overly life-centric

I think the summary in the lead is too long for humans and life-forms. It is (as suggested earlier) too homo sapiens-centric and life-centric. Having said that, the information would be fine (if not there otherwise) in the article. People should be under "Fauna!" I'm not joking! And the "200 countries" is clearly out of place in lead. We're talking about a very thin layer of the planet, a mile or two high, maybe one deep. Yes, there's exceptions to that description.

Not sure about "Gaea" remark in lead. Have to think about that....Student7 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Well...life is by far the Earth's most distinctive trait, and humans are the most notable species of life on Earth. As is, the lead has a paragraph each for its history, composition, orbital characteristics and lastly life. I don't see how this is overly representative of life. — Reatlas (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem with an encyclopedia written by humans, for humans, mentioning key facts that are of importance to humans. Wikipedia itself is very human-centric, as well it should be. The lead satisfies WP:LEAD; the content of the lead is merely a reflection of the article content. There's no need to balance the text to provide an extraterrestrial perspective. Praemonitus (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

humans?

I feel that perhaps this article is too human based. Given the age of the planet and how long we have been around I would think we wouldn't get half the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.162 (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The article seems very human-biased and disproportional weight is given to topics of humanity. 76.78.3.160 (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

edit request

Please add U.S. measurements to the Physical characteristics section, for example circumference = 40,075.017 km (24,901.5 mi).

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. While I think it's a reasonable request and that adding it would be helpful to our readers, convention has it that only metric units are used in science-oriented articles with an international scope. Therefore, a compelling case would have to be made—and clear consensus reached—to override the guideline and add U.S. measurements to this article. Rivertorch (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Earth's Mass Inconsistent with Reference

Hi, Just noticed that the value for the Earth's mass (5.97219×10^24 kg) while being consistent with Earth_mass is referenced to a NASA website http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html which states a different value (5.9726 ×10^24 kg). Perhaps the reference should be changed to reflect the reference used in the Earth_mass article: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Earth&Display=Facts

Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Microlabrat123 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 25 October 2013‎

 Done, I've changed the ref. — Reatlas (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Earth"

So "Earth" should be capitalized for sure, when it means our world? As in "on the Earth". Pubserv (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. I seem to recall guidelines which advise against it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is capitalized only when referring to the planet. The relevant guideline is MOS:CAPS#Celestial bodies. — Reatlas (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: more about population

82.219.30.93 posted this comment on 21 November 2013 (view all feedback).

more about population

Any thoughts?

JayDugger (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

See the article History of the world for specifics of human population on Earth.

Orbital Elements Incorrect?

The orbital elements listed at the top of the page do not agree with JPL Horizons data, as far as I can tell. http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

The elements also do not agree with Vallado's Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications Table D-3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.217 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are explanatory "notes" with which we can disagree. Then there are footnoted WP:RS. We probably need to go with one set of values. If one set is wrong, we need to determine why here. I don't know about a textbook. Values are always changing, the moon is drifting out. the earth accumulates mass, I guess earth is slowing down and moving sunward. So the figures will always "drift," right? Not crucial unless way off in value. Student7 (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that someone has copied values from sources without really knowing what they mean. Inclination and longitude of ascending node describe the orientation of the orbital plane in relation to some other reference plane. The reference plane is crucial, with different planes of reference you get completely different numerical values. And argument of periapsis is measured in relation to the ascending node (see the picture on Orbital inclination page), so it too depends heavily on the reference plane.

Currently on the table, for inclination there are two different values, with notes on what reference plane they are in relation to, that's all well and good. For longitude of ascending node and argument of periapsis there's a single value for each, and no note what plane these are in relation to. This in itself is bad as the reader has no way of telling which one of the previously mentioned reference planes is intended here. But it gets worse. The source where those values were taken from actually uses a reference plane that is neither of the two reference planes used for inclination. So these two values, as they are on the page now, are actually completely meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.157.215 (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much should be First Point of Aries, right? Could we focus on a single value, for discussion purposes? A bit easier than trying to resolve the whole set at once, some of which may not require resolving. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)