Talk:Earth

density of the Earth
If the mass of the Earth is given in kg, then the density should be in kg/m3. Mir.Nalezinski (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for pointing that out! ✨ΩmegaMantis✨blather 18:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will point out that the density of astronomical objects is largely given in g/cm³ and not kg/m³ by astronomers. However, Earth is of course the one astronomical object which is of interest to many fields beyond astronomy, so whether or not an exception can/should be made for units here can be argued either way. ArkHyena (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. The source in the stat did use kg/m^3 though. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨blather 00:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Plus, iirc, using SI, density is kg/m^3, irregardless of what convention some astronomers may prefer.72.16.97.19 (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is more generally fitting to use the convention researchers of a given article's topic use, so in this case all astronomy-related articles (except Earth now, given its outlier status) have densities given in g/cm³ instead of kg/m³. ArkHyena (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have changed the density units to g/cm3 for consistency with other articles, so comparisons can be made easily. This is the recommendation currently given by WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style, though this MOS is still in the process of solidifying, so input on the talk page there is welcome. As to whether the Earth should be an exception, its overall density is mostly only of interest in astronomy and planetary science and related fields. Chemistry and geology and whatnot I would expect to be more interested in the densities of specific substances on the Earth. But chemists firmly use g/cm3 and from our articles on minerals it looks like geologists do, too, so I'm not sure there's actually much disagreement between fields here. Maybe the NASA source cited in this case is just not following the prevailing professional convention. Heh, and maybe not the first time NASA was confused about units. -- Beland (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I was mistaken about the usage of kg/m³ in other fields concerned with the bulk properties it seems! Regardless, I've added a comment stating that planetary densities should be (and, in literature, are) given in g/cm³ instead of kg/m³. ArkHyena (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Units of Density
Why does Wikipedia specify densities for all of the other planets in grams per cubic centimeter but specifies Earth's density in kg per cubic meter? Shouldn't these be consistent? Etr52 (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * See the messages above. Remsense  诉  03:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know, it has been fixed. Eason Y. Lu (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2024
change all mentions of "the moon" to "luna"

change all mentions of "the sun" to "sol"

preferably change all mentions of "earth" to "terra" but that isn't very necessary yet Tygical (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this will not be happening per WP:COMMONNAME—on Wikipedia, we use the most recognizable names for a general audience. Remsense 诉  04:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding The Tectonic Plates Infobox
The Nazca, Indian, and Filipino plates are very prominently marked on the image displayed, even when they aren't understood as the 7 major plates as per the relevant paragraph. I feel like updating the graphic to one with all unmentioned plates greyed-out as "others" would be a sensible alternative, which would also free up cyan and red to be used in the color-coding. 157.92.14.69 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The caption could perhaps be reworded. As to the map, the Philippine Sea Plate is the only one shown where the colour is opaque, which looks odd, perhaps there are more suitable alternatives out there. Mikenorton (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * File:Tectonic plates (2022).svg is an alternative, although we would need to look again at the article text, as that map includes the Somali Plate. Mikenorton (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Photographic representation of Earth
More than two years ago, a consensus was reached on Earth's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earth&oldid=1070139987#Photographic_representation_of_earth) regarding which version of The Blue Marble should be used to illustrate Earth.

Earth's article is primarily a scientific page, not a cultural one, and therefore should include accurate imagery of Earth rather than romanticized or distorted photographs, even if they are "culturally significant." Take, for example, Neptune. For years, a false color, vividly blue representation was used to illustrate it, and our cultural perception of Neptune was distorted as a result. Now, its current infobox properly uses a newly processed, true-color photograph, and the public perception of Neptune is finally closer to the truth. I believe that, unless a newer true-color image is chosen, the color-calibrated version of the 1972 photograph should be used. Aaron1a12 (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Also pointing out that the (still WIP) MOS:ASTRO explicitly states the infobox image should favor accuracy and clarity above all else when possible. ArkHyena (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It is very debatable whether there is such a thing as "true color" when it comes to photography in general and astronomical photography in particular. If "true color" is the colors which would be seen by the 'average' human *under the same lighting conditions*, that seems reasonable. Almost always photographs are adjusted (doctored) for various contrast, temperature, and chroma parameters. The ideals of accuracy and clarity come into conflict, especially with the Gas and Ice Giants as the various colors are low contrast and of faint hue. So, accurate pictures will show a lot less detail than high contrast ones. Seems to me the ideal is to provide both.98.17.181.251 (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Archean Art
The artist rendition of an Archean landscape is simply wrong. The sky (atmosphere) is believed to have been methane rich and pink/orange, not blue. The Earth-Moon distance back then was probably 40+ Earth radii (currently, it's ~60) so the Moon, if it were visible, would not occupy such a huge fraction of the sky. Its appearance would not be so similar to the modern Moon's surface. In addition, with the near-by volcanic activity, there's even more reason to believe you would not see blue sky. And with more particulates its unlikely that the Moon would be visible at all during daylight. If the artist's impression is supposed to be accurate and representative, I question why it shows a shallow lake or ocean without waves. The complete absence of life should be more apparent. This same artwork appears in a number of other Wikipedia articles, and it is just as wrong/misleading there as it is here.98.17.181.251 (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"known object to harbor life"
Would, within the first sentence, "known object to create life" or something of that means be more appropriate? Because of the fact we have the ISS and other things of that sort that are inhabited outside of Earth, it might be better. Please try and find something better than create, but the idea is that Earth isn't the only known inhabited thing in the universe. 60.240.247.190 (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)