Talk:Earth/Archive 10

Map and continents
I'd like to see what would be the opinion on modifications to Human Geography section. The current map causes technical problems - one link on top of the other and enlargement of the width of the article. Also, countries are mentioned but not the continents. Another Wikipedia (mechanical translation here, "Geography") utilizes the use of clickable map with links to Commons Atlas, while wikilinks to continents are provided within the paragraph. Would that idea work?--Adi (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That link you provided fails to open in IE, so I'm not clear how it could be used here. But I agree that the clickable map is less than ideal and does disrupt the section format.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Works on my IE7, but this link can also be used: --Adi (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would make a certain amount of sense to use a navigation map at the level of the continents. There's a similar image part way down the Continent, although it's just a non-clickable map.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The new map looks fine, and thank you for putting that together. It may make sense to put it in a template for maintenance and re-use. 'Template:Continents' is already taken, so perhaps a name like 'Template:Continents navmap' or 'Template:Earth continents' would work?&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Slowing of the earths orbit
Is it true that the gravitational pull of the sun and moon causes the earths orbit of the sun and the earths rotation to slow down ever so slightly. if it is would it be worth adding to the article. Mr Deathbat (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead (top) section already says:
 * "Earth's only known natural satellite, the Moon, which began orbiting it about 4.53 billion years ago, provides ocean tides, stabilizes the axial tilt and gradually slows the planet's rotation." (Boldface added by me)
 * I don't know about the Sun, but the Moon is clearly credited for slowing down the Earth. --an odd name 11:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok didnt see it there, thanks for confirming that Mr Deathbat (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Info box image Apollo 17 Blue Marble
The image in the infobox is not the original Blue Marble from Apollo 17 as the caption claims, it's a home-made gif based on a 2001 retake. For reference, File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg is the original, while File:Rotating earth (large).gif (according to its descripton page) is based on on this NASA image (external link). Disregard that, judging from User talk:South Bay, it was apparently a nonsense edit. 78.34.155.161 (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Intersteller point of view
The article currently states "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist", this does not really have other possible points of view from other planets in mind, as there are probably most definitely other planets with life and I'm sure they know they exist. This should be changed to show that currently to human beings its the only place known to have life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.138.53 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No other life is known to exist off of Earth. That doesn't mean there isn't a probability, or high-probability, of it being so. -Atmoz (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you didn't read the IP's point carefully. The point is that if there are intelligent creatures on other planets, it is very likely that they are known (by themselves) to exist. The point has been made here so many times that it gets really tedious. It's valid, of course, on a technical plane, but in an encyclopedia of human knowledge, we really shouldn't have to say "it is not known to humans whether..." instead of "it is not known whether..." everywhere. On Wikipedia, as in Britannica or any other encyclopedia of human knowledge, "known" means "known by humans". -- Jao (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before. The general philosophy in is that wikipedia is written from a human perspective. Once aliens are discovered, the wording can be updated appropriately.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization issue
Hi. We've been discussing here whether it should be "Earth" (as in this article) or "earth" (as the MOS implies here). Apologies if this has already been discussed but I would appreciate some of your thoughts. --John (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it could reasonably be argued that, in an article such as Earth, it is MOS-compliant because MOS says as follows:




 * I should point out that World Book encyclopedia spells it lowercase throughout its Earth article whereas Encyclopedia Britannica does it uppercase so practices are mixed when one is on an encyclopedic article on the subject of Earth. The Associated Press observes the lowercase practice world-wide whenever mentioning of the earth, moon, or sun when writing something like this: For civilian night-vision goggles to work effectively, the moon must be above the horizon. Their practice is compliant with the general grammar rule encapsulated at Grammar.ccc.comment.edu, which states as follows:


 * I quote this text from World Book: The earth has three motions. It (1) spins like a top, (2) travels around the sun, and (3) moves through the Milky Way galaxy with the rest of the solar system. It also has this: The earth has only one moon. Mercury, Venus, and Pluto have none.
 * Greg L (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Off-topic for this dicussion, but Pluto certainly has a moon. --John (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My set of World Book predates that discovery. I’ll keep just how old it is to myself for the moment. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the Earth article is a scientific article, and specifically in an astronomical context, it seems well justified to always capitalize Earth, Sun, and Moon in this article. My personal opinion on the matter is if Earth is being talked about in any scientific manner, it should be capitalized. I can see not capitalizing the sun and the moon in casual sentences, such as "The sun is hot today," or "There is a full moon tonight."

Actually, those sentences led me to the full moon and Full Moon articles. Seems a bit odd those are two separate articles, and "moon" is alternated from lowercase to capital on the full moon article. Anyway, that's just an example I stumbled across just now that proves the ambiguity of this question. By the way, I wouldn't use a really old reference book for comparisons. I don't know for sure but I'd bet it's become more common to capitalize these terms in scientific contexts, and always writing them in lowercase is outdated. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Full Moon is a dab article, but I could see it being renamed to "Full moon (disambiguation)" with the Full Moon being a redirect to Full moon. On the topic of capitalization, I also prefer Earth being capitalized in this scientific context because of the potential for ambiguity with "earth" (dirt). "Moon" and "moon" have a comparable issue, with the lower case often being used for moons other than the Moon.&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the thing is, when referring to the Sun and the Moon you almost always use the qualifier "the", therefore it's not ambiguous whether you mean other moons or suns, regardless of the capitalization. Earth many times has "the" preceding it but it's becoming increasingly more common to simply say Earth, which is what I usually do, and is one reason I like to almost always capitalize Earth, unless it's meaning is soil. It's hard to break hundreds or even thousands of years of common language grammar rules when the space-faring age is only 51 (Sputnik). LonelyMarble (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

world population
does anyone think that the world human population should be included in the infobox? surely that is at least as important to most people reading this article as some of the other figures already there? Jessi1989 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That information would be more appropriate in the World article (as your wording already suggests), and it is included in the infobox in that article. This article is trying to look at Earth from an objective, scientific perspective, and therefore why would we include the human population in the infobox? Yes, it's written by humans, but we can detach sometimes. That's my opinion anyway. LonelyMarble (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it might be useful to have a cited world population template that can be used in various articles? That way the value can be regularly updated in a single place. (But it may need several logical variations, so it can be flagged to state "as of such and such a date", &c.)&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin name for Earth.
All the planets in the solar system use Latin names, except Earth. I realize this is because the IAU has no official scientific name for our dear planet, but as far as I know, IAU doesn't have a scientific name for our moon either. Checking the Moon article it reads "The Moon (Latin: Luna)" at the beginning of the article. A similar thing for the Sun, "The Sun (Latin: Sol)".

I am a bit puzzled why there is nothing similar to this for the Earth. In school I remember being taught the latin name for the Earth was Tellus, and I know some people use Terra (from Terra Mater). Shouldn't we at least mention this in the article, instead of simply stating "It is also referred to as the World and Terra."

How about: "Earth (Latin: Tellus/Terra) ..."

Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skela (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Terra is already mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. No offense, but personally I dislike that parenthetical pronunciation stuff that gets stuck in the first sentence of many articles; to me it seems very disruptive to the flow of text. I'd rather see that get moved to the infobox wherever possible, or blended into the flow of the text.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, then perhaps we should put it in the infobox on the side? It would fit quite nicely in the Designations part there. What do you think? Skela (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest we put a Names entry in the infobox under Designations, above Adjectives. Since the infobox seems to be in a format used in the other planets articles we need to discuss this change before it is implemented. Does anyone have any issues with adding a Names entry in the infobox? Skela (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think it is necessary. "Tellus" and "Terra" are not used anywhere near as often as "Sol" and "Luna", and the infobox option tends to attract a host of whatever-people-feel-is-"popular" terms... Better to leave it as it is, as the "Tellus" issue was discussed and removed some time back. --Ckatz chat spy  02:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As it is now, the "Designations" section seems rather empty, there's only some rubbish about Adjectives used. Do you have any arguments against it besides personal taste?Skela (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Infobox Planet is used on other articles besides this one, I recommend taking this idea to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects for consensus. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology?
This may sound obvious, but I think there should be a section dedicated to the etymology of the word "Earth". I have absolutely no idea how it came into place. If I find info, I'll definitely add it. obento musubi  02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See: Earth. Personally I think etymology belongs in the wiktionary. It gets too much emphasis in wikipedia, at the expense of the actual topic.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I must've missed that part. The first paragraph takes care of my concern. Thanks! (Although it isn't quite an etymology, it is effective in giving a brief explanation of the development of the word). obento  musubi  06:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of room on the Earth in culture page if you would like to develop that topic further. This article is already so long that summary style is a necessity. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

surface area?
The number for the surface area used doesn't seem mathematically correct, using the formula for the surface area of a sphere will give a number in the region of 10^14 meters squared where the number here is 10^11. I actually think that the number from the cia world book might be a typo and the period is supposed to be a comma, also looking for an online reference will usually lead back to hear making the reference circular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.171.165 (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The surface area of 5 km2 is listed correctly. What are you looking at?  Dragons flight (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

oops my bad, did a very silly mistake when changing from meters squared to kilometers squared, thought something was odd about the whole matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.85.47 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Earth as a living planet
earth is the only living planet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.182.137 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean only planet with life. As far as you know.  But a planet itself can not be alive. Makewater (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as we know. ;-) &mdash;RJH (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, one day, the magma within earth will stop rotating, the core will cool, and so Earth's magnetic field will cease to be. When that happens, nothing protects it from the brunt of the Sun's cosmic rays, so it effectively dies. --Whyareall (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My friend likes to describe the biosphere as the planet earth. I don't see a problem with calling earth alive 99.238.196.147 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Piepants

"Earth" vs "The Earth"
The article starts sentences by saying "Earth is" as opposed to "the Earth is". Is that correct? Makewater (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's correct. Dropping "the" in front of Earth is becoming increasingly more common, especially in science-related language such as this article. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Add
Could you please add Template:Physical Earth. I am a newbie user and I can't edit this article. Thanks.

--BSATwinTowers (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Mikenorton (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

hmm, it would be nice to know the average distance from the earth and the sun
In my physics book it says it's about 1.496*10^11m, I wonder if it would be a good idea to include this. btw, I'm using the seventh edition of physics for scientists and engineers with modern physics by serway/jewett (for sourcing purposes if anyone needs it). --Dguenther - DGun (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It mentions an average distance of about 150 million kilometers . The semi-major axis distance is usually what is meant by the average distance in an orbit, and that is in the infobox. Just barely over 1 au. Saros136 (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Average temperature of Earth
I was trying to compare the temperatures of the different inner planets looking at their wikipedia articles. Strangely earth of all articles doesn't seem to have this data I found on a NASA website that it's .04 degrees Celsius. I think this should be added to the climate section It seems like an important and basic fact of a planet. The article is locked however so I could not add it myself. A side note I really don't like the fact that the article on the earth itself is locked, please reconsider this.

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#GlobalTemperature

-Doug 68.25.20.16 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm stupid, it's already in the info box. Just overlooked it somehow. Sorry. Though maybe it should be in the climate section also for stupid people like me, :) Also anyone know what's with discrepancy between the figure I found and the one listed?


 * -Doug 68.25.20.16 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The graph you looked at shows temperature anomalies (the difference from the long-term average temperature). The label on the y-axes shows it is plotting temperature anomaly, though the text around the graph does not make it clear.  The graph is also not clear in that it doesn't say what period is the baseline for the long-term average, but it is probably the average global temperature from 1960 to 1990.  If the average during that period was 14C, then the current plotted value of 0.4C means the current global average temperature is 14+0.4, or 14.4C.  StephenHudson (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Foolish terminology
Is "blue planet" a logical name for Earth?? I think it more logically fits Neptune. Georgia guy (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I support removing. One more person and we can have "consensus". LonelyMarble (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant if it's logical. People use it, so we should report that. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just seems to be given too much weight being in the lead paragraph. But I guess Terra is not used that much either compared to World. Are we assuming that the three most common names for Earth are "World", "Blue Planet", and "Terra"? That's the information being implied so I hope it's accurate. LonelyMarble (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the case for including Terra and "Blue Planet" in the lead is pretty marginal, but others seemed to deem them important and it gets a little tiresome debating over individual sentences in the article. Also, the lead is now up to five paragraphs; it really should be whittled back to four per WP:LEAD.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The less popular names should be someplace other than the lead. And the opening paragraphs are quite tangled; I moved most of them into a Summary section and tidying is needed.  -- SEWilco (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your change because of the WP:LEAD policy: the lead section should be a concise summary of the article. If you would like to rearrange the lead, then we can discuss that.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Gaia be in the list too? Where did Tellurian come from? I've only ever heard this planet being called Earth, the World, Terra, and Gaia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.184.220 (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gaia was the Greek name for the Earth goddess, but I don't think it is in common use except in the context of the Gaia hypothesis. There seems to be enough of a consensus above to move the more obscure names out of the lead. I think they belong in the culture section; probably in the first paragraph giving the origin of the name Earth.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick facts about Earth on mytholgy
Earth's Greek name is Gaea which us married to Uranus.She is the mother of land formations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melzy2022 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm...Cool.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg
Is this file restricted for use only on this article? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's a purely NASA image and thus is essentially public domain, although they ask you to credit the image appropriately.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yay.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedant mode *on*
I'm not so sure about this sentence in the lead:
 * Home to millions of species, including humans, Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist.

Does it make sense to say Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist? In the context of discussing life on other planets, it strikes me as a little arrogant, as if humans not knowing of any other life is equivalent to other life not being known to exist. I mean, the existence of any other self-aware being (of which we are discussing the possibility of), whether they themselves are aware of life on other planets, is enough to contradict the sentence. Of course, in any other context (like the discussion of a mathematical conjecture) it must be assumed we're talking about humans' understanding (it is not known if conjecture A is true or not, as opposed to humans don't know ..). We also send out a lot of stuff into space, no doubt some of it living, so does that contradict the sentence too? As you roll your eyes and ask if I'm being serious, rest assured I agree that I'm being very picky, and even feel a little foolish bringing it up. Still, I think the sentence could be worded a little more correctly, if only to avoid the issue than try and deal with the issues I've brought up. Ben (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, can we substitute the words Home to for Supporting or something equivalent? Ben (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it is rather presumptuous to have this statement in this article. It would be meaningful in an article on "life". The qualification "only" is a property of life, not of the Earth. This has been brought up many times, but is being reverted systematically. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the current phrasing is fine; being absolutely pedantically correct would probably make for awkward prose. I suggest that you write a short addendum to the more general statement and tack it on as a note, id est: […] is known to exist. {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits}&#125; 17:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This topic sure does come up a lot, along with the Creationist's age of the Earth issue. It must be a meme.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems like whenever someone gives an example of a meme it's one that is foolish, like this often brought up topic here. I say foolish because this is an argumant over semantics in human language in an article written by humans in a collective work of the collective knowledge of humans. Qualifying sentences with "known" is redundant, and "known by humans" even more redundant. I can see how you can read that sentence in two ways, defining "known" in different contexts, but arguing the semantics like that is dumb considering humans' perception of the world is only ours, and this sentence of human language might not even be translatable into the language of any other self-aware being, therefore it could be "pedantically" true too. Anyway, how long until this comes up again? I say once this discussion is archived, maybe three days. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the oft repeated reasons for having the statement about "only place with life", we might with equally good reasons include a phrase "it is the only planet to have a wikipedia". Sounds rather silly now, hey? &minus;Woodstone (talk)
 * I think this topic is silly. Here is the second sentence in the Encyclopedia Brittanica article on the Earth:
 * Its single most outstanding feature is that its near-surface environments are the only places in the universe known to harbour life.
 * The presence of life on Earth is a unique and highly notable attribute of the planet, just like the supergreenhouse on Venus or the permanent red spot on Jupiter. If wikipedia is to be any kind of encyclopedia, then this fact absolutely must be mentioned in the lead.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Life is certainly a very distinguishing feature, and the main reason to include "only" is because it is at the current time a fact of uniqueness. For a person who is totally ignorant about the topic, the fact that Earth is the only planet known (to humans) to harbor life seems a very pertinent fact, for this article too because it compares this planet's features to other known planets. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction
This article states that "Earth has at least two co-orbital asteroids, 3753 Cruithne and 2002 AA29.". The Quasi-satellite article states that "Earth currently has four known quasi-satellites: 3753 Cruithne, 2002 AA29, 2003 YN107, and 2004 GU9.". --93.167.94.18 (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The latter two objects lack citations on the Quasi-satellite article, and I'm tagging them as such. Note that "at least two" can include "four" or more. But they can always be added them in once there are citations. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Moons
Doesnt the earth actually have 5 moons now? Shouldnt this be added?

there are now: The Moon, Cruithne, 2000ph5, 2000wn10, 2002aa29.

Bizzehdee (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Only one permanent natural satellite, that being the Moon. You may wish to read through the talk page archives for the numerous discussions regarding this point. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  20:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

At present, Earth provides the only example of an environment that has given rise to the evolution of life
shouldn't this be "only example currently known to man" as the current statement - taken literaly - would mean that no other planet harbours life in the entire universe. my proposition would be more accurate. user: XM8 Carbine (my log in memmery isn't working) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.136.236 (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I have to disagree. The use of 'currently' would be redundant, and the use of 'example' here is clearly interpreted from the perspective of the intended audience. The key criteria is probably Verifiability. Implicit in your statement is the idea that other, self-aware life forms exist. To me this is likely true, but currently unverifyable. I don't think a revision is necessary; nor is speculation about the existence of life elsewhere. When we find other examples, the article can be modified accordingly.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we sould add a clear qualifier that puts both of these statments in to context i.e. that us and the Earth are the only examples we have of life and therefore the 'habitability' of any part of the universe is completely and arbitarily defined by the sample size of N=1. We could add such a clause as (as we currently know it, which is based on a sample size of N=1, is limited by our current observations and is therefore a completely arbitrary definition). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amore proprio (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but to me this is painfully invalid logic, and therefore it is your conclusion that appears arbitrary. I'll have to disagree. No offense intended.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Meridians and parallells
At present, only the circumference of 1 paralell is mentioned; can a list be given for how large the other paralells are ? (eg the parallell on the at 70° N/S is much shorter than the 0° parallell)

In addition, the parallells arent really the east-west equivalents of the meridian's: the parallells run parallell to each other (no intersection), while the meridians run towards 1 central point (Northpole, Southpole) and intersect there. What exactly is the true equivalent of the meridians, and what are the equivalents of the paralells (thus lines running paralell from the north/southpole, and not towards it).

Also, shouldn't the ecliptic meridians and their equivalents be used on maps (I'm guessing the "top" of the earth isn't actually the north pole, but rather the area more left towards the 70° parallell is. See File:AxialTiltObliquity.png.

If the proposed parallells and their equivalents don't yet exist, they need to be drawn on a new image and shown in the earth article (and modifications need to be made at Circle of latitude and Meridians

KVDP (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To a very good approximation, the length of any parallel is the cosine of the latitude times the length of the equator. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The fate of the oceans
Currently the article includes the following statement:


 * Even if the Sun were eternal and stable ... 35% of the water in the oceans would descend to the mantle due to reduced steam venting from mid-ocean ridges.

This result is based upon the Bounama et al. (2001) paper, which uses a geophysical model that posits 27% of the current ocean mass will be subducted within the next billion years. In 2006, however, there was a news story:



that states:


 * ... up to 10% of the Earth's oceans have been absorbed deep into the Earth since its formation.

Those rates don't seem compatible. Is that because the continents are larger now and there is much higher rate of subduction? But even that wouldn't seem to account for the difference.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Earth Images (Rosetta)

 * http://www.wissenschaft-online.de/artikel/1014174
 * "image = The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg" 82.109.84.114 (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your point?&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Earth" or "Terra"?
Given that all the other planets have Latin names, is then "Terra" not the correct name for this planet? And thus "Terran" as the posessive? RadicalOne (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. In English, the name is Earth.  If you read this very article, especially the Cultural viewpoint section, you can see some of the derivation of the name.  The second line of the entire article essentially explains it, though - because we named it Earth.  Terra is used for land masses (terra incongnita) and futuristic sci-fi scenarios. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 02:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "In English, the name is Earth." Of course it is, but that was not my point. If the scientific name for other planets are Latin, is it not consistent for the Latin name of this planet to be the scientific one, with English being the "common" name? Or is it another term of "centric" origin - e.g. "The Sun", with humanity self-importantly naming their own planet/star/etc according to different conventions? RadicalOne (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Terra" is used for Earth in scientific journals? Really? -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  03:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was - I doubt it is - but my point is that "Terra" is a more logical and consistent name than "Earth". RadicalOne (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, sort of the latter, but it's not really an issue of scientific name or not. Unlike species, which have Latin (Linnean) names, the planets do not; Jupiter only has one name, Jupiter. Names for the Earth, Sun, and Moon are "centric," as you say, since they clearly dominated (in that order) the perceptions of ancient civilizations. Names like Terra, Luna, and Sol are really all just attempts to unify those names into a more "logical" system, or how a third-party might name them, hence the use in sci-fi. In the future, questions like this can be asked at the reference desk. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 03:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The International Astronomical Union (IAU) is responsible for naming all astronomical bodies in accordance with its naming conventions. Its official list of English planetary names is at Planet and Satellite Names and Discoverers. It has accepted the historical name "Earth" for this planet in English. A comprehensive list of planetary names in other languages is at Planetary Linguistics including transliterated names in languages that are not written with the Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Russian, Arabic, and Mandarin. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "terra" even belongs in the lead, given that the only note that links to it simply informs the reader that the IAU does not recognise the term as a name for the Earth.  Serendi pod ous  15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the 'terra' preference probably comes from it's frequent use in science fiction writing. E.g. humans are referred to as "terrans" in many novels. However, as it is the latin for Earth, and used historically in phrases like terra firma and terra incognita, I don't think it is terribly outlandish to include it in the lead.&mdash;RJH (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, just what I was going to write when I saw that you had already written it. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 16:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Future of Earth
The section Future seems to me to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This might seem at odds with science which clearly can make prediction on the fate of the sun. However: I wish to interpret the policy so that, when modelling and guessing the future of Earth, it must be painstakingly clear that the section Future reflects one or more models. I dislike the simplistic model presented as being truth. Statements such as:
 * The Earth's increasing surface temperature will accelerate the inorganic CO₂ cycle, reducing its concentration to lethal levels for plants (10 ppm for C-4 photosynthesis) in 900 million years.

is far too precise. If I'm not wrong, there are various models of early Venus, one claiming that the oceans evaporated for runaway greenhouse effect very early, such as about 3000-3500 Ma ago, and another that claims that the increasing clouding allowed Venus to be oceanic up to about 800 Ma ago. Such variance in models for Venus should have its counterparts for the future of Earth. The number 900 Ma in future should probably be from 500 to 3000 Ma in future or some such, if similar models are applied to Earth as for Venus. Stating 900 million years would require lots of according to and references. I believe the section presents as facts very speculative modelling attempts very early in the science of planetary meteorology. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another objection: the section uses many sources to produce one picture. I think the section actually borders to Undue synthesis and to Original research, while at least some of the sources implies that there are other beliefs on what event will occur at which time. I'll mark the section with some warning template. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 19:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ward and Brownlee (2002) cover the topic in great detail at a scientific level, so I don't consider it WP:SYNTH at all. The section is fully cited, so adding a citation about "original research or unverified claims" seems inappropriate. As for the "900 million years" issue, that can be readily managed with an "about" or an "estimated". In sort, I disagree with your objections.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification of an AfD
Just a quick note that I've submitted Volume of the Earth for deletion (see here), in case anyone was interested. Cheers, Ben (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Magnetosphere Data
This might be a suitable piece of information to include on all of the information bars for the planet series on Wikipedia, as it is a relatively common and useful piece of information. I am finding myself having to search on other sites to acquire this data, which is a rarity for Wikipedia. Take this into consideration and perhaps confer with some of the other talk pages on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.134.41 (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that information is missing from the Earth's magnetic field article? If so, then you might mention it on that article's talk page. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

i have a ref for earth mean density
i can't put this in because i can't edit this page

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/KatherineMalfucci.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.182.192.11 (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I added your reference. You probably cannot edit this page because you are not logged in to an account.  The Earth article was semi-protected by administrator User:Jmlk17 more than a year ago to prevent vandalism (because it's a high-profile article).  If you want to edit it and other semi-protected pages, you can do so by creating an account and logging in.  Nimur (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that the above references is unsuitable for the data point since it lacks the listed precision. (Which is why I removed it: sorry.) I think the data comes from Yoder (1995), but unfortunately that is currently inaccessible.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Both Yoder (p.8) and Allen's Astrophysical Quantities (p.12) have 5.515 g/cm$3$. NASA has 5515 kg/m$3$. JPL has 5.5134 g/cm$3$, which probably includes the atmosphere because it was Earth's mass derived from satellites divided by the volume of a sphere having its mean radius. I haven't located the source of the figure now in the article, 5.5153 g/cm$3$. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The 5.515 value seems to be pretty widely published and probably has enough precision for wikipedia purposes, I think. The extra digit doesn't seem to add much value. :-) &mdash;RJH (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why no Fahrenheit?
It seems to me it would make sense to include the surface temperatures in the sidebar in Fahrenheit as well, regardless of their scientific acceptance, they are used by one of the largest countries on the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarfyperson (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is an encyclopedia, and those temperatures teach me nothing. I shouldn't have to learn another "language" just to get information from the world's single largest source of collaborative knowledge. 67.106.115.42 (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand it, every industrialised nation in the world uses metric/SI units. Even the single industrialised nation that does not generally use them do use them in scientific/medical/etc contexts. In my mind then there is hardly justification for including conversions to that unit in a scientific article. This is backed by MOS. Ben (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a mouse-over tag we can use that will provide Fahrenheit in a pop-up? Otherwise I agree, plus it clutters up the text.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The template could be modified to have a third set of fields for Fahrenheit. As has been said, due to the scientific context, it's otherwise reasonable to omit Fahrenheit, but since this is a Earthly weather temperature, I think a fair argument for an exception can be made. --Cyber cobra (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to point out a slippery slope, but we need to be careful. Once extra conversions begin to be added in places throughout this article (particularly via a template that is used on many articles) they're likely to creep their way into other articles of a similar nature via that template (editors feel compelled to keep templates as populated as possible) and throughout the text, which in many instances will mean there is a potential for three units of measurement whenever a temperature is mentioned. Then it's likely the the case with respect to distance will appear .. Ben (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And so on. I agree. Keep the temperatures in Centigrade; Farenheit, while acceptable for colloquial use, is not widely accepted in scientific material. I vote that adding them would cause more disruption (and potential for damage later on) than the benefits of appeasing a minority.  -RadicalOne --- Contact Me  02:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm American and I was taught that Celsius/Centigrade is usually used in scientific contexts. Considering the fact that this page has a lot of scientific information, we should use that. --Evice (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to post this
but, while there is a wiki article for underwater, there is no equivalent article for underground. I can't find an appropriate article to add to the disambig page. Is there one?  Serendi pod ous  00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think lithosphere, crust (geology), and mantle (geology) could all be linked in a sentence explaining that underground usually means below the surface of the Earth. I noticed that Earth's surface redirects to lithosphere at the moment. LonelyMarble (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, am I missing something? Below the surface of the Earth is the very definition of underground, so that would just result in a link to the wiktionary. I think the Structure of the Earth article covers the above linked topics in some detail, and it is already linked in this article.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)