Talk:Earth/Archive 15

Restoring back the previous, long-term image
The current image of the Earth we're using doesn't have a significant encyclopedic value it should have in order to be placed as a main image of the planet. We have many better alternatives, including the previous one - The Earth seen from Apollo 17. So I would like to raise a notion of restoring it back.

Images from the DSCOVR satellite don't show natural colors. It's good for showing capabilities of this particular combination of sensor with selected 3 narrow-band filters out of 10 available for this particular satellite, but that's about it. Resulting image is oddly tinted towards red/yellow that significantly devalues it's value as an encyclopedic article considering that we do have much more color-accurate representations. Pretty much the only real advantage I can see for this photograph is the perspective - to simplify: at this distance you can actually see "more" of a globe than the satellites orbiting at the lower altitudes do. Everything else speaks against it (resolution, sharpness, neutrality, historical value, color accuracy, spectrum, etc. etc.)

But what makes me even more amused in all of that is the fact that from what I see the first and a major reason for the original notion to change the image was because it was "NASA-centric", and then you voted to have it changed to an even more "NASA-centric" image than the previous one - Blue Marble could be considered neutral due to it's historic value, this one here is clearly "NASA-centric" as we have tons of different satellites shooting photographs of the Earth these days, so why pick the one specific to the latest NASA satellite? As far as I'm concerned: the outcome of this change is the opposite of original notion by BDS2006.

At a moment we have brown-ish mush in an infobox. It really should be fixed. SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I also would prefer a return of the Blue Marble, but I don't have a problem with the DSCOVR images. A2soup (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I also approve of SkywalkerPL's statements. The whole concept of an image being bad because it is "NASA-centric" is hilarious, especially since NASA is pretty much the only freely licensed source for such images, and they are certainly of the highest quality. As with A2soup, I too have no real problem with the DSCOVR images, but the historical value of Blue Marble makes it a much better fit in my opinion. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

✅ - restored Earth image to original Apollo 17 image - due to highest votes, long-term use, historical significance and encyclopedic value - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thx Doc, I fully agree. The Blue Marble as one of the most iconic, and among the most widely distributed images in human history is definitely to be preferred. It may become dated one day due to climate change, but that's something for future generations of wikipedians to worry about. -- Cheers,  R fassbind  -talk   15:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just dislike that we're putting up a photo of what the Earth looked like in 1972. Like humans haven't been able to take an okay photo since then, or like Wikipedia doesn't have access to current photographs so we have to show something that predates the Internet. Wikipedia should try to be present and updated, and always have as new images as possible. What was the problem with this file?-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the Earth. There's nothing recognizable that changed since '70s and you could see on this photograph. No new impact craters, no new oceans, etc. etc. ;). Wikipedia does have an access to other photographs of the planet, and users can find them under appropriate link available in the article. As for what's the problem with file you linked to - I would direct you to a section above for a good beginning, but it also suffers from the same problems I described above, though to a lesser extend. Also remember that it's not the first newer photograph of the Earth published by NASA, yet this article survived all of them - that happened for a set of good reasons, most of which were already pointed out in the talk section.
 * If you really feel that article is missing something from not having one of these two photographs from DSCOVR satellite - feel free to add the image with an appropriate caption to the article content. I don't think there's any reason not to have a few different photographs of the earth in the article content. And it might be an interesting addition considering that this very specific photograph you linked to shows (basically) the opposite side of Earth to the one seen on Apollo 17 photograph. SkywalkerPL (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Blue Marble photo is historically significant but this is the Earth article, not the Apollo missions article. Our collective consciousness is accustomed to an early 1970s representation of the Earth, but that's not a logical argument for selecting the Blue Marble. NASA is to blame for its poor artistry and several decades of releasing botched images of Earth masquerading as true photos, because the public at large has become insurmountably confused about what our very own planet looks like. We of course know what our Moon looks like, it's the ability to see our own planet that is most amazing, like when a child first sees himself in the mirror, yet the Apollo missions led by genius scientists (not artistic geniuses) brought us to the moon without ever caring to look back at ourselves. The Blue Marble photo is an accidental photograph for which after a lab technician who processed the photo saw Earth for the very first time (like the child seeing himself in the mirror) every scientist wanted to take credit for this artistic yet accidental achievement, an achievement that grew to be greater than the act of walking on the Moon. Every scientist aboard the Apollo 17 wanted credit for taking that photo, yet nobody even remembers taking the photo--that is NASA's artistic capabilities in a nutshell. Now on to DSCOVR, why do we finally have a real view of our planet, for the first time since Apollo 17, for the first time in 43 years? Did NASA learn any lessons from the Blue Marble about the public's interest in seeing itself in the mirror? Indeed, NASA learned but they misunderstood. Over a period of four decades they released many new images of our Earth, proudly but confusingly titling them "Blue Marble" or sometimes less confusingly but more deceptively "Blue Marble Update" when in fact all these images were not photos but rather computer generated by technicians more fascinated by the Earth from a scientific perspective than caring to depict our planet as it actually appears to the human eye. NASA even took us to Pluto, 5 billion miles distant, before giving us a proper view of our own Earth and bragging that it's "one million miles away." Thankfully, we now have DSCOVR, not because NASA finally understands that photographs are powerful, not just useful, but because in the 1990s Vice President Al Gore had the Apollo 17 Blue Marble photograph hanging on his wall and because he plead with NASA to give us a view of our planet once again. Ultimately, like every NASA mission, DSCOVR is a scientific one, however it includes the artistic origins of Al Gore's vision for the clearest, most beautiful view of our planet, and that they have certainly achieved. With DSCOVR, it is as if we have finally discovered a planet with intelligent life and that planet is Earth. We have images of our planet that are true photos capturing the most accurate colors ever of our planet. After over four decades of distorted images of our Earth and endlessly retouched/recolored versions of the Blue Marble, we have gotten so used to the fake being real that the real has become fake. Earth looks alien to us and that's because we're seeing our planet for the first time like never before. The original Apollo 17 "Blue Marble" photograph was shot on a special negative (SO-368) combined with a lens filter that deemphasized blue and caused other alterations to the image's colors. DSCOVR is meticulously color-calibrated, not "perfect" in the sense that it exactly matches human vision, whatever that even means, but still far more accurate than anything taken by anyone before. From a distance of approx. 930,000 miles we’ll be able to see almost 50% of the surface of the Earth. Let's remember that this discussion is for the Earth article. The subject of historical significance here should be the Earth itself, a planet billions of years in the making, not a photograph taken some 40 years ago. So, the real question is which photo most accurately and appropriately depicts the planet we live on?
 * I’d like to propose two ideas for how to choose the ideal banner image from DSCOVR:
 * 1. A photo taken in mid to late September because the equinox occurs on September 23 this year. The Earth’s axis will be tilted neither towards the sun (as it is now) nor away from the sun (as it will be in the winter) but rather tilted 23 degrees to the left of our perspective so that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres will be equally represented in the photo. This is ideal because it maximizes our ability to see the entirety of the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Notice how this first photo from DSCOVR is emphasizing North America, it’s because it’s currently summer in the Northern Hemisphere (the Northern Hemisphere is angled towards the sun/camera) and therefore the camera is capturing less of the Southern Hemisphere. I really hope NASA times the photos well, because with Earth positioned similar to how it is in the Elektro-L photo with the Southern tip of India near the center of the photo it will now be possible to see even much more of Earth: the entirety of Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, half of Antartica and the North Pole. All of the Earth’s oceans will be at least partly visible in the photo as well.
 * 2. The alternative idea is to have the Earth banner image update every two hours to reflect our planet as it appears most recently (perhaps this idea is too bold, but it would be amazing).--Cinemologist (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I've been able to gather, the DISCOVR image is a composite, and not in natural colour. Why is it more scientifically valid than the Blue Marble?  Serendi pod ous  19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "The whole concept of an image being bad because it is "NASA-centric" is hilarious, especially since NASA is pretty much the only freely licensed source for such images, and they are certainly of the highest quality." —Huntster


 * Regardless of any scantily substantiated justifications Huntster has provided for fabricating copyright violations to censor a Wikimedia project to fulfill personal predilections (had the banner image deleted and effectively reinstated his preferred image against the wishes of the community at the time—a very clever coup that went unchallenged), his actions were hostile and were not made in the interest of human knowledge. User:INeverCry, the user who ultimately deleted the Elektro-L images, acted on the basis of misleading information in the deletion nomination page provided by none other than Huntster—the same user that has been staunch in his support for the Apollo 17 image on this talk page. And what a fortunate coincidence. INeverCry then suddenly went into retirement three hours later (after many years of prolific editing with Wikimedia) to never be heard from again. And a reversal of the deletion would certainly be blocked by Hunster, despite more direct evidence of free license for the images in question than is found for the vast majority of images hosted on Wikimedia Commons. He conveniently held content he didn't want on Wikipedia to an arbitrarily high standard to ensure it would be deleted while laughing with contempt at the unprecedented responses from Roscosmos affiliates who explicitly stated the Elektro-L images are "free and open data" with no restrictions on use. Now, every single image we are looking at on this talk page was captured by NASA and we can all thank Huntster for that.


 * The argument is a straw man, as I simply pointed out that the discussion was NASA-centric, which can be easily verified from a cursory examination of the archives. His claim that, "they are certainly of the highest quality" is not credible. Roscosmos images are 124 MP while the DSCOVR images are 3 MP. In other words, some non-NASA alternatives have 1.5 orders of magnitude more data. Furthermore, over 99.5% of all full-disk Earth images ever captured were not captured by NASA so that should give pause to anyone who is concerned about an objective, enlightened discussion of the subject. And the Apollo 17 image that he exhibits a clear bias for? It is technically unremarkable. Its redeeming value? But, of course, it's historic! If historical value is the criteria, why not use the first image of the Earth ever captured from space? Is it not "historic" that a satellite reached 1.5 million Km into space and—against all odds—captured clear images of the Earth after 17 years of political wrangling in the US Congress? DSCOVR is indeed a NASA project but the photos are inherently neutral (and quite spectacular). It is the meta-data—the arguments—that are biased. I accomplished my goal of catalyzing a serious and global discussion about the image that represents the Earth across multiple language editions of Wikipedia. Most of you challenged yourselves to think openly and objectively and I am elated by the intellectual exchange that ensued. I can rest assured that whichever image is ultimately selected to represent the Earth on the default reference for all knowledge will be chosen with a much richer understanding of the subject and a keen awareness of the alternatives and that gives me tremendous pride. Thanks to all who sincerely participated in this epic exchange! My mission here is complete. Over and out. --BDS2006 (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Those are extraordinary accusations against me, . You seem to believe I'm involved in some kind of conspiracy to keep a specific image in use here. "Defamatory"??? I'm not even sure how to respond to that, it's so over-the-top. Regarding the "highest quality" statement, I apologise if I was unclear, but I meant that of the available pool of freely licensed images, NASA images constitute the vast majority, and of those, I believe they are of the highest quality. It would be great if a broader range of Earth imagery was available for us to pick from, but the fact is that ESA, Roscosmos, private company, etc imagery is copyrighted by default. There is a reason why NASA imagery so dominates the image pool in use on Mediawiki websites, and it isn't because of someone's whim.
 * Yes, I've expressed my preference for Blue Marble, but, I don't ultimately care whether Blue Marble or a DSCOVR image or some other freely licensed image of Earth is used. My only interest is keeping non-free images out of Commons, and despite the communications back and forth with the agency controlling Elektro-L imagry (NTS OMZ), there is still zero evidence that the images are not copyrighted or at least available under a free license. Their wording only stated that the images were publicly available, which is not the same thing as being public domain (as in, released from copyright). That simply is not enough to be kept on Commons, where the "precautionary principle" is necessarily in effect. I've got no problem with the Elektro-L images, but until and unless there is actual evidence from an authorized source that they are freely licensed, then they have no place on Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note, but I think INeverCry retires and unretires semi-frequently. I say this based off of what I've seen of the user (I have watchlisted the relevant user/user talk pages). Dustin  ( talk ) 23:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What you've gathered is not correct. The EPIC camera on DSCOVR is capable of capturing 10 different wavelengths of the light spectrum ranging from ultraviolet to near infrared, meaning the EPIC is actually more versatile than consumer cameras in terms of spectral coverage. Consumer-grade cameras only capture visible light in three separate wavelengths, or channels: red, green, and blue. True-color simply refers to an image that is captured in color (red, green, blue). The separate color channels are combined to produce a final image. This is true of any camera from digital cameras (color filter arrays) to film-based cameras (emulsion layers). DSCOVR's EPIC is no different, except that it can also capture wavelengths outside of the visible light spectrum. The true-color photos of Earth taken by DSCOVR are also not to be confused with "composite images" because a composite image refers to an image that has been stitched together from hundreds or thousands of images, whereas DSCOVR simply snaps photos of the entire Earth in one shot. Finally, the reason DSCOVR is scientifically more valid than the Blue Marble photo is because it was specifically designed to capture Earth and to capture it in an optimal way, in terms of colors and composition but also in terms of a long-term mission that will continue to produce the best data (scientifically and artistically) and the clearest photos we have of our planet for years to come. Sadly, the original "Blue Marble" photo has been, on countless occasions, carelessly color-graded and further recolored in many horrendous ways that distort the colors even further than its chemically and mechanically troubled beginnings (SO-368). To put it as simply as possible, do you not see the color difference between the "Blue Marble" photo and the DSCOVR photos? I hope I answered your questions.--Cinemologist (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Consumer-grade cameras only capture visible light in three separate wavelengths, or channels: red, green, and blue." - That's a false information. Consumer cameras gather light from all of the visible spectrum + little bit beyond it (less in UV, more in IR). For an example see DXO graph for sensor response. As I already explained in my earlier post - DSCOVR sensor is using very narrow band filters, your spectral response would be made of very narrow peaks (think: 1-2nm) instead of mountains like in consumer camera. The "true-color photos of Earth taken by DSCOVR" don't exist, cause DSCOVR is not capable of capturing true-color photographs. These are only a composites from few narrow-band filters. The thing you are forgetting is that DSCOVR "was specifically designed to capture Earth and to capture it in an optimal way" for scientific purposes. It never was designed to show you how the earth looks like, but rather each spectral filter got a very specific role in monitoring certain surface features, such as vegetation cover. Please, next time read the previous comments before posting as most of the concerns you raised were already addressed. SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Axial tilt precision

 * This is such a nit I hesitate to argue. I think, however, that the original precision given was to a 10,000th of a second of arc, and a second of arc is 1/3600 of a degree of arc, yielding a precision of 1 / 36,000,000 of a degree of arc. That is on the order of a hundred-millionth of a degree, which is the precision I had provided. An order of magnitude is about 3 binary bits, and that is one binary bit away, and therefore the closest decimal precision. Is my calculation wrong? Evensteven (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The original was 23° 26′ 21.4119″, which gives 23.439 281 083°. 23° 26′ 21.4118″ gives 23.439 281 056° and 23° 26′ 21.4120″ gives 23.439 281 111°. Apparently, we both mistook the level of precision (even though I checked it several times, especially before reverting you). I've changed it. --JorisvS (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the precision you have given will do. The original precision was closer to the extra digit (eighth decimal place), but not all the way there, and at that point it's a matter of choice where you stop. Yours is probably more correct for scientific purposes, using only the digits that were fully specified by the original. I was thinking more in computer terms, about not losing bits of precision. Evensteven (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean 'in computer terms'? --JorisvS (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * About the limited precision available in floating point representation of numbers. I used to do scientific programming, and learned to be watchful of using techniques that would preserve precision in the results (and avoiding the opposite). Conversions such as this one present similar considerations, and I was looking at how best to preserve all the precision of the original. How much was there? The fractional portion of the original takes 25.10 bits (practically speaking, 26, of course, but 25 gives you almost all) to represent: that's base 2 log (36,000,000). To seven decimal places, it would be base 2 log (10,000,000), or 23.25 bits. Eight decimal places is 26.58 bits. So the original precision of 25.1 bits is closer to eight decimal places than seven. But eight decimal places is also something more than 1 bit more of precision, so the original wasn't giving full information for the eighth decimal place, just approximation to within about 3 digits in that place (i.e. ±0.00000003). Does this make sense to you? I was saying that in computer work, we would try to ensure 26 bits for representing the fractional part, preserving all the precision that existed in the original, while in science, one might not want to give the 8th decimal place without the ± error, because a full 8 places is a bit more precision than we really had to go on. It's the difference between full capture of information (an input function) and overstatement of information (an output function). Evensteven (talk) 04:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Barely. How could this be relevant here? --JorisvS (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Only to the extent that it determines precision: the relation of precision as expressed in decimal numbers of degrees to that expressed in arcmin and arcsec. But you asked what I meant by 'in computer terms'. It's an explanation of how I got used to working with precision when working with computers, that's all. It's just one means to an end - the end we were trying to get to here. Evensteven (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ceiling fan vandalism
Someone replaced the Earth image with a picture of a ceiling fan, but I reverted it. Be on the lookout... Dustin  ( talk ) 01:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Between me making the above comment and now, there was a war between me and a vandal, but I emerged victorious and the revision history was cleaned up. The page has been protected, so you don't have to stay on the lookout after all! Dustin  ( talk ) 01:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I made a mistake! The file page was semi-protected a few years ago, but I misread it as full protection today! Stay vigilant. Dustin  ( talk ) 02:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image appears squashed when not logged in
When viewing this article while not logged in to Wikipedia, the infobox image appears squashed, turning the Earth into an oval (see these screenshots for illustration). The problem does not appear to be browser-specific, manifesting in both Firefox and Chrome. Does anyone know what might be causing this? --Lindaiwe (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen it too, but while logged in (I have not check not being logged in). I could make it go away when clicking edit or when purging the serve cache (Alt+Shift+*). I have no idea what causes this weird behavior, though. --JorisvS (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Arable land source
I am looking for a source concerning arable land and surface area breakdown of Earth. I was excited to see this line of the article:

The total arable land is 13.31% of the land surface, with 4.71% supporting permanent crops

I was, however, disappointed to see that it refers to a page that makes absolutely no mention of arable land… Perhaps the source changed or it was never there, but I think this should be fixed.65.24.29.78 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I added the relevant inline template to that citation. Vectoor (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I actually went ahead and added new figures and a new source. Vectoor (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

New NASA Earth image - worth adding - or not?
New animated NASA Earth image (see below) has been released recently (19 October 2015) - is it worth adding to the main "Earth" article - or not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because an image has been recently released, it doesn't mean it should be put in an article, especially when it's added in a totally unrelated section. Also, I don't see how this image is necessary for a better understanding of the article. In other words, what do we learn from this image? Cheers, Huritisho 18:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * TetraQuark, I think this image is fine for the article. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop reverting my changes. If you think I'm someone else, just wait for the checkuser Huritisho 21:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Two points. 1), until and unless there is Checkuser confirmation that this user is a sockpuppet, please stop referring to him as such. It is nothing except antagonistic. 2) Regardless of what you think of him, he is correct about that image. It is of relatively poor quality, it was poorly placed and in no way supports that section. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Huntster, you are correct. My actions were antagonistic. Huritisho, I apologize. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Thanks, Huritisho 05:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - Thanks for the comments - no problem whatsoever - yes - agreed - the image could be better - and better placed - Suggestions Welcome => for a better place in the "Earth" article (if any) - and/or - for some additional use in other article(s) (if any) - Thanks in any regards - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you added the image in the Deep Space Climate Observatory article. It seems good enough there. No need to post it in more places. Cheers, Huritisho 05:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

mean elements
I have removed the number from the 250-year best fit by Standish. He made two of them, one ranging 6,000 years, and of course the numbers are slightly different. Standish make it very clear that he was not providing mean elements, and that the elements calculated by his formulas are only valid throughout the time frame. That would be from 1800-2050 in the fit used. But his article was in the Astronomical Almanac, and he is from JPL, so they have come to be considered the very best mean elements.

The VSOP87 mean elements are already accepted on Wikipedia. The figure quoted for the length of the sidereal year is derived from them. The authors showed that making their elements was more accurate in the 1800-2050 than the Standish ones were (although this was not the purpose). The eccentricity and semi-major axis values I put in were confirmed in the VSOP2013 ones to the precision I gave. Saros136 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

someone please find a way to remove the [clarification needed (O3 created from O2 + UV radiation)] tag
it is polluting the lead and the article might lose the featured article status Huritisho 16:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The template was placed here with the edit summary, Sentence makes it sound like ozone comes from living organisms. In fact organisms make O2. So, if ozone doesn't come from living organisms, the sentence should be changed to reflect that. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence entirely, since it is a bit too in-depth for the lead anyways. I tried to clarify the issue in the Atmosphere section with moderate success. It can definitely be written better, but it's a start. A2soup (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having the initiative. I was wondering if we could simply have changed ozone to O2, but what you did is also acceptable. Huritisho 02:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record (lest this be misunderstood), O2 is "ordinary" breatheable oxygen, the element's most stable molecular arrangement. Ozone is O3, and not that stable, and toxic to humans. Evensteven (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015 – symbol for Earth's mass unit of measure
Within the parenthesis at the end of the first sentence of the section "Chemical composition", the mass is incorrectly given as "5,970 yg" instead of "5,970 Yg". (Capital Y is the symbol for the "yotta"=1024 SI prefix, while minuscule y is used for "yocto"=10–24.)

Krrypton (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks for pointing it out. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

NASA-TV/ustream (11/12/2015@12noon/et/usa) - "Global warming-related" News Briefing.
IF Interested => NASA-TV/ustream and/or NASA-Audio (Thursday, November 12, 2015@12noon/et/usa) - NASA will detail the Role of Carbon on the Future Climate of the Earth - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)  NASA scientists report that human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) continues to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years: currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.   
 * BRIEF Followup - REPLAY LINK (Audio; 66:01) => http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/77531778 - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * SUMMARY (and possible addition to article) (see below) - Comments Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Degrees Fahrenheit and miles conversions
As someone who grew up learning temperature measurements in degrees Fahrenheit and distance in miles, I don't understand degrees Celsius and distance in kilometers enough to know how to convert them without a calculator. I was wondering if there is any policy in place preventing adding conversions in degrees Fahrenheit and distance in miles alongside the current conversions. I didn't want to inadvertently violate a policy and have myself or someone else have to revert any changes.

Anyone who responds to this please mention my name specifically so I get a notification of any reply. Jesant13 (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * . Yes. Just do this in any article. 5 km and 0 C . The convert program knows to convert them into miles and F. The unit is very fussy and must be exact. The reason for the two measurements existing side by side, is that the rest of the world is metric; only the US is imperial. But most English Wikipedians are Americans! Articles "owned" by another country are metric first, the US, imperial first. Student7 (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I got at least some of it done. I was careful to make sure it is abbreviated and shows up correctly. Thanks for your help. -Jesant13 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2015
The first paragraph uses the present text to talk about things that happened 4500 000 000 years ago, please correct to use past tense.

Nibor56 (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ Please specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". It reads fine to me as written with the words "arose" and "discovered in" all being past tense. Inomyabcs (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2016
A minor edit is needed in a few values, as they are inaccurate.

2601:881:8100:84B2:DC2C:9A22:82B1:A922 (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, if you wish to correct values, you should provide a source to show that your proposed correction is accurate. A2soup (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2016
Add "Mostly Harmless" to general data

XXxFord PrefectxXx (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌ - See top of this page. Mikenorton (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To expand, Mr. Prefect, you need to provide sources for your addition of the word "mostly". Personal experience is not grounds for including information in an article per WP:OR. Good day. A2soup (talk), Vice President for Research, Megadodo Publications

Unbalanced lead
This isn't a 'life on Earth' article. The lead section is much too focused on life on the planet, whereas the article is primarily about the planet as a geological entity. Thus it doesn't provide an unbiased summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. Praemonitus (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. I noticed this when I was quickly looking at the article, from a mere outsider point of view. The featured status not corresponding to the unbalanced or biased article made me click to the talk page... 2001:8A0:4303:1201:882F:AD90:F163:FB14 (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - yes - agreed - adjusted lede section to better emphasize the geological aspects of the Earth article - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As this article on earth does cover biology, it seems that there isn't much of a neutral point of view regarding human origins. The article speaks with such authority describing evolution yet the concept is a scientific theory and nothing more. I feel the only way to maintain Wikipedia's standards would be to list other points of view including but not limited to intelligent design. Littledj95 (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this article is about the Earth itself and covers evolution only as background, it only presents the scientific consensus on evolution rather than delving into a full discussion of alternative theories, as all theories that reject the basic concept of evolution are widely regarded as pseudoscience. To mention a pseudoscientific alternative to a theory that is only discussed as background in the first place, while it may seem to be a faithful application of WP:NPOV, would be to give the pseudoscientific theory undue weight. See also the section of NPOV on pseudoscience and the FAQ banner at the top of this talk page. Please understand that this aspect of NPOV is not intended as an attack on your beliefs; rather, it is simply the well-established consensus on Wikipedia on how to apply the "due weight" aspect of the NPOV pillar. A2soup (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I read the respective guideline and see what you mean. Wikipedia presents the majority view of most subjects according to the concept of Consensus decision-making. I realize there are few "scientists" who hold these viewpoints, but scientific evidence (derived from the scientific method) is not non-existent among "pseudoscientists". While I would probably agree with your conclusion regarding this article inparticular. The Abiogenesis is noticeably lacking in its coverage of "alternative views on origins". The undue weight principle by its very nature does not mean "zero weight". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It describes non-original research and attempts to use NPOV. I feel that this principle of undue weight has been used to completely neglect any and all other minority views. Littledj95 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Degree units in infobox
When the edit window is opened to work on the infobox, there is a (commented out) notice there that says, This infobox has been formatted in the same way as those for other Solar System planets and bodies, so please do not change it without discussion on the talkpage. That was what I was going by when I reverted your changes from "deg" to the symbol "°". You are right, the other solar system planets use the symbol; but that doesn't warrant your very un-civil edit summary.

I could not find a discussion about the units either in the archives here or on the template's talk page. One reason I can think of to use "deg" instead of the symbol would be to make it clear that it is a clickable link in its first instance. It's hard to tell that the tiny degree symbol is a link. Personally, I would prefer the word, if it is used, be spelled out instead of truncated.

Was there a discussion about the degree units at some point? In the change from "°" to "deg" (here), the edit summary mentions a "page notice" that I haven't been able to track down. Can anyone shed some light on this? — Gorthian (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I typed my edit summary because you reverted without looking at the value of the edit (which should be done regardless of such a notice) and because the edit is really a no-brainer: it aligns the infobox with standard practice inside and outside Wikipedia of using the actual degrees symbol. The one difference with the rest of the infoboxes I kept was linking the degrees symbol, because the Earth article may be a tad more likely to attract people not familiar with the symbol than the others (then again, those figures won't mean anything to those people anyway). In 2014, the practice of using the degrees symbol was not any different from what it is today (maybe except that the first instance of the degree symbol used to be linked, but I don't know when it was decided to remove the link altogether, which was partly because of that very difficulty of identifying it as a link if I remember correctly), so that particular change was simply against standard practice. --JorisvS (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Earliest Life Claim Needs Further Evidence
"Earlier physical evidence of life includes graphite, a biogenic substance, in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in southwestern Greenland, "

Graphite can and does form in nature through non-biogenic processes, and has even been detected in molecular clouds in space. Humans can make both graphite and graphene from Vapor Deposition, which is a process which can easily occur in nature in a non-biogenic environment, such as the impact of a Carbonaceous Chondrite, under the assumption of a Methane atmosphere which supposedly existed at the time, rather than a modern Nitrogen and Oxygen-heavy atmosphere. Volcanic Lightning in a Methane atmosphere can most likely produce Graphite and Graphene as well, by ionizing or otherwise dissociating the Carbon from the Hydrogen. I realize you have to think sort of 4th-dimensional to see those two possibilities, but those two alternative hypothesis are actually more likely in the absence of any other determining evidence.

I would not consider Graphite as evidence of past life without some sort of further contextual evidence. If the Graphite contained an amino Acid or Protein, fully enclosed as an Inclusion, and not just embedded in the surface, that would be at least half-decent evidence of past life. Even an amino acid could form in a molecular cloud, so I would prefer an actual Protein as a full inclusion inside a piece of graphite before I would consider that as evidence of the graphite being biogenic.

Otherwise, if you assume a piece of graphite is biogenic you are at best guessing, and at worst a crank.

Sorry, but this claim isn't sufficient evidence of anything by itself.

In this case, they need to define how much Graphite was discovered, and then extensive laboratory experimentation is needed to calculate the probability of that quantity of graphite forming by chance from biogenesis, volcanic lightning, both positive and negative, in Methane environment (can be modeled,) and Carbonaceous Chondrite in Methane Environment (can be modeled, but probably more difficult).

WadeDanielSmith (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The relevant quote from the cited Nature paper is
 * " graphite in the examined schist has sedimentary characteristics with various morphologies, suggesting that meteoritic origin is unlikely for the Isua graphite. Polygonal and tube-like structures in graphite-rich schist show similarities to those found in artificial nanocarbons formed under evaporation–condensation conditions and in electric discharge systems. However, unusual temperature conditions and chemistry of carbon sources to generate artificial nanocarbons are difficult to realize in the Earth’s crust. Therefore, we conclude that polygonal and tube-like structures in the graphite-rich schist were generated during maturation processes of organic matter. A minor portion of heterogeneity in the graphitic structural order could be caused by the secondary effects of surrounding minerals and/or dynamic fluid flow processes15 during metamorphism.


 * Graphite in the metasediment from the northwest ISB is distinct from the graphite in vein samples. The combined information on geological occurrences, graphite morphologies, nanoscale structures and isotopic compositions of the graphite in the metasediment suggests a biogenic origin. High concentrations of 13C-depleted graphite in these rocks would require widespread biological activity to support the high rate of production and sedimentary delivery of organic matter to the >3.7 Ga ocean floor."


 * It's clear that the authors have considered this carefully and are not just basing it solely on the presence of graphite. Mikenorton (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To elaborate further, the relevant fact is not that there was graphite; it is that the graphite was 13C depleted, which is a signature of carbon in living organisms vs. abiotic materials. The lead was extremely wrong to state that all graphite is biogenic, which I have corrected. Thanks to for drawing attention to that error. A2soup (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. To my knowledge, this is actually the most intellectually honest response to one of my objections on an article to date.

There's actually still another Lightning related problem which may or may not have been known to the authors of that paper, which is that Lightning can actually produce atomic transmutations, including the triple-alpha process, based on Positron detection, but I'll leave that one alone for now, because it is not at all well understood yet, and the probability of that one happening in a macroscopic amount is very low.WadeDanielSmith (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, let me clarify that I wasn't being confrontational. I just respect the fact that this planet has literally had everything scientifically imaginable happen to it at one time or another, with literally the sole known exception being a collision with a Star.WadeDanielSmith (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Lowest temperature
Hello. Should we change the lowest temperature ever recorded to -93.3°C? It was allegedly found on 10.08.2010 in pockets of trapped air on the East Antarctic Plateau (source:, though I don't know how reliable it is). Peter238 (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Shape?
See this discussion. The "Shape" section here says: "The shape of Earth approximates an oblate spheroid". If you go to oblate spheroid you see a diagram with extreme flattening that has no relationship to the Earth's shape at all. In fact, it should reflect what it says in the lead of the Figure of the Earth article: "the sphere is a close approximation of the true figure of the Earth and satisfactory for many purposes".--Jack Upland (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Why Myr but Ga
wouldn't it be either Ma and Ga or Myr and Gyr. Why right Myr and Ga in the same sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.5.254 (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No good reason; it should be as you say. The mess is even worse than that, though. In the section above, there is also "mya", which is a geological abbreviation for "million years ago". --JorisvS (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/death_of_earth_000224.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://seis.natsci.csulb.edu/rmorris/oxy/oxy4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).


 * http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/death_of_earth_000224.html


 * http://seis.natsci.csulb.edu/rmorris/oxy/oxy4.html [not working]
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20090415082741/http://seis.natsci.csulb.edu/rmorris/oxy/oxy4.html [working]

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First link works, second doesn't. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Second link works at article. Somehow the archive link didn't get put here. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Problems in Formation subsection
This article says it took 27 million years for the primordial Earth to form.

The earliest material found in the Solar System is dated to 4.5672±0.0006 billion years ago (Gya).[44] By 4.54±0.04 Gya[33] the primordial Earth had formed.

and

The assembly of the primordial Earth proceeded for 10–20 Ma.[45]

Even though this is referenced to a number of sources, they are pretty old and not exactly in line with current thinking. The current view is that there is no consensus on how long it took, or at least nothing that definition in that time range.

The usual procedure is to count the Theia collision as the last major planet-building event, and to go with the conventional date for that of 38 million years after the beginning of the formation of the solar system (e.g., First Core collapse, etc.). On the other hand, a wide range of other figures are getting kicked around.

For example, in one scenario Earth goes from a speck of cosmic dust to 100 km diameter in less than 100 years. Among the models involved are the "dust bunny" model (fluffy aggregates of cosmic dust), gravitational eddies, pebble accretion, water vapor at temperatures of up to 1500 K getting "adsorbed" (with a "d") (Adsorption) or chemisorbed (Chemisorption) into cosmic dust, making it stickier. On the other hand, many papers still cite 50-100 million years.

The other problem is with the "glancing blow" theory of the Theia impact. It is now generally accepted that it was a direct hit. Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Overlinking
Just to clarify, my edit summary was supposed to link to MOS:OVERLINK, but I messed up the shortcut. There were a million wikilinks in the lead, some for common words, some for words that are explained/linked later in the body, some for expressions that just really didn't need links. It was distracting and made it difficult to read. PermStrump (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Good job! — Gorthian (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

♁
I was just looking through unicode tables, and noticed they use the above symbol in the sequence of symbols for planets in the solar system, yet the article makes no mention of this symbol. Wikipedia even recognizes the symbol means earth, since putting it into the search bar automatically redirects to this article. I was just wondering if anyone knew the story behind this symbol, or could add it to the Cultural and Historical Viewpoint section. Unless I misunderstood something about semi-protection in articles I should be able to do it myself, but I can't --Astrocom (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Astronomical symbols lists it as one of the two distinct symbols for Earth, so it would make sense to include information about it. --JorisvS (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Life
This article gives very little attention to life on Earth. Mostly what is discussed are the physical aspects of our planet. Can editors with biological science knowledge/expertise comment on this, and possibly contribute summary content? Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016
There is a simple spelling mistake, it is "501", it should be "510". In chapter "Surface" first sentence is "Earth has a total surface area of about 501 million km2 (197 million sq mi).[13] ". It should be "510 million".

Reasons: [1] On the top right of the page it is stated 510 million. [2] 198 million sq mi translated to 510 million sq km. [3] 510 is a value that you can find in quoted source (after summing up land and ocean areas). [4] 510 is well known value from other sources.

87.206.67.120 (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Brianga (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Earth's mass
Could someone with permission please add info about earth's mass relative to the total mass of the solar system? I couldn't find any easily accessible info online, so I calculated it myself to 0.0003%, based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size#List_of_objects_by_radius. This is an important fact, so important that the Sun's wiki page has it on top.

Greetings earthlings! 30 September 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.85.161 (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Weather and climate
I found this section hard to read, particularly the paragraph on anomalies to the general rule that latitude dictates climate. I rewrote it as a bulleted list, not meaning to change any of the substance, except for the following:


 * The material stated that the Northern Hemisphere is warmer than the Southern Hemisphere in comparable situations, even at aphelion, counter-intuitively; but didn't say why. The answer was in the footnote source:  The Northern Hemisphere has larger land masses, which heat up more easily.  I added this, and added the 93.55% statistic from Perihelion and aphelion (it is uncited there).
 * The second paragraph is based on the deleted paragraph that stated that western coasts are milder. I believe this is because they are windward, and that the direction is opposite in the Southern Hemisphere, and have stated this.
 * I added the fourth bullet, on altitude as a factor in climate. It is uncited and I am not sure it is stated in the best way.

The sentence on the Köppen classification, which appears above the bulleted list, probably ought to appear below it, as it is based on the anomalies listed in the bulleted list.

Finally, a lot of the same thing, including more precise dates for perihelion and aphelion and their variability, is stated below at Axial tilt and seasons and someone with more experience with the article should consider whether all the text is in the best place. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh 366=365?
"During one orbit around the Sun, Earth rotates about its axis 366.26 times, creating 365.26 solar days or one sidereal year.[n 7] ". Unless I'm missing something the 366 should read 365. I am not able to edit due to efforts of vandals (non- or anti-science unfortunates I suppose). Mcneale (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's called sidereal time. The Earth actually rotates 366 times in a year relative to a fixed point in the sky, but 365 days relative to the Sun. There is an issue in our articles, however, as this article ("Earth") says 366.26 days, whereas "sidereal time" says 366.24 days, and external sites don't agree either. It's confusing. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016
The name Earth was first referenced 4000 B.C. by Adam and documented in the Bible book Genesis chapter 1 verse 1.

66.75.74.2 (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this is ill-advised. The reference did not occur in 4000 B.C., least of all the English word, even to those who believe that the creation occurred in 4000 B.C.  The article deals with Earth as a planet.  (I think that even mentioning the number of nations is far afield.)  Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Spike, this is a definite no-go for those reasons and far far more. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my! seems we already give this answer in the Frequently Asked Questions at the top of this talk page. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Aphelion, Perihelion, Seasons
According to this entry, Perihelion occurs in July while Aphelion occurs in January.

"The Earth is closest to the sun (at perihelion) in July, which is summer in the Northern Hemisphere. It is furthest away (at aphelion) in January, which is summer in the Southern Hemisphere, and only 93.55% of the solar radiation from the Sun falls on a given square area of land than at perihelion."

This is incorrect. Perihelion actually occurs in January, with Aphelion occurring in July.


 * Thank you for pointing that out. It was a recent error accidentally introduced on October 20th by  (see above) who, I'm sure, intended to write perihelion in January.  I've corrected the error.    D b f i r s   12:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Right you are, sorry! Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 one external links on Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.esrf.eu/news/general/Earth-Center-Hotter/Earth-Centre-Hotter
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/g1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1010.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130104143844/http://wmo.asu.edu:80/world-highest-temperature to http://wmo.asu.edu/world-highest-temperature
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fai.org/astronautics/100km.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEcat5/secular.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://geology.csupomona.edu/drjessey/class/Gsc101/Weathering.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/plate_tectonics/part1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/weather_worldbook.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astrobio.net/news/article223.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/23-2_charette.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prb.org/Educators/TeachersGuides/HumanPopulation/PopulationGrowth/QuestionAnswer.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437_537_2005_fall/docs/uprooting.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * All these citations check out, although most of the links listed here lead nowhere (the "Added archive" link being one that does lead to a useful page). Dhtwiki (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Earth Photo removal


Hello, I didn't put that photo in the Earth article because "it was a nice photo". I put it opposite text about wildfires, which is what that photo illustrates. I won't get into an edit war of course, however, I wish you would reconsider your removal of a very relevant photo to that section. P.S. The statement that "there are too many photos in the article, is 'untrue'. This article is 'barren' compared to most. The justification for that particular photo in that spot, shows us that a natural disaster can be as beautiful as it is devastating to the environment. Thanks- Pocketthis (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The section is short and already has a relevant image in it. We don't need to illustrate every disaster possibility. I stand by my decision to remove the image. (And nearly every section in this long article has at least one image. I would hardly characterize it as "barren" compared to others.) — Gorthian (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Overall, compared to other major articles, "Earth" is more text, and less illustration than most. The photo that is there now, shows only volcanic activity. I believe the photo I placed there adds to the article's quality and diversity. That is for all of you to decide. Thanks for bringing the subject here. It's what I would have done before removing a potentially relevant addition to an article. Thanks - Pocketthis (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of shoehorning an image into an already crowded area. Further, it shows haze from a wildfire, not a wildfire itself, which would be more appropriate. Believe me, we always appreciate folks donating their images, but an uploaded image does not need to be included in all the places. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your opinion. I have plenty of actual wildfire shots that I could have uploaded, however, here, I wanted to show the "beauty and the beast" aspect of a natural disaster. Thanks. If I don't get some help here soon, I'll pack up and move on. Pocketthis (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Amazing how incredibly large this article is, and how few editors care to comment. This is your encyclopedia editors. Make it great, or simply let those who would make your decisions for you........make them.Pocketthis (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mind you, it has only been a couple of days, and it is the holidays. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I like ice cream. Triple flavor stands a good chance of finding favor with plenty of palates. Still, I agree that there were and are plenty of images for the purposes of this article. Carry on..±. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Less is more, as they say. It's a beautiful picture, but doesn't add to our understanding of the topic Earth (or wildfires), which is the point of images in an encyclopedia. This article is already very cluttered to point of distraction with all types of boxes, links, images, etc. At this point, it would improve readability to remove some things rather than adding anything new. —PermStrump  ( talk )  22:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Orbit
I am not an expert on any aspect of earth, therefore, I hope someone with more education reviews this information. This being said, I believe that this line under Rotation must be incorrect: "on average it takes 24 hours—a solar day—for Earth to complete a full rotation about its axis so that the Sun returns to the meridian. The orbital speed of Earth averages about 29.78 km/s (107,200 km/h; 66,600 mph),". The earth is roughly 24,901 miles in circumference at the equator which takes 24 hours to rotate to the same position relative to the sun. 24,901 miles / 24 hours = 1,038 mph, not 66,600 mph. Unless I'm missing something.

Thanks. Scottallen999 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think that's talking about two different things, and that the orbital speed of 66,600 mph is not the rotational speed but is the speed with which the Earth moves in its orbit around the Sun? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Finding a place for the world
We have a separate article for world, which is intended to emphasise the human aspect of things on the Earth, but shouldn't we link to the world article somewhere in this one? I think so, but this would require rewriting the first sentence of the lead. Thoughts on how to proceed? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I added a disambiguation link at the top of the article. Maybe that is enough to address the issue, but the first sentence still possibly needs adjusting since it mentions "world". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Technical correction on first paragraph
On the first paragraph, it is said that Earth is the only planet in the universe to harbor life. Shouldn't it be "the only planet known to harbor life", as we haven't explored the whole universe yet? We are still looking for life in other planets, and Nasa recently found some good candidates. I think it would be interesting to leave the possibility open in this article. DanielRHM (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)DanielRHM
 * ✔️—"only object in the Universe to harbor life". —MartinZ (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Composition by volume
The composition by volume seems to add up to 100.0002%, before I take into account the variable amount of water vapor, which would leave the Earth at over 101% of earth's atmosphere. This seems dangerous. Can anyone verify the numbers?--70.241.151.200 (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Planetary designations
Sol d already redirects to this article but as with the other planets in the solar system (Sol d-i) this designation is not found anywhere in this article. Would it be an idea to add it somewhere? Maybe in the infobox? Or has this maybe been discussed elsewhere already? Mulder1982 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? That designation is uncommon to the point of almost complete disuse. None of the other Solar System planet articles contain the "Sol #" phrase. There's simply no need for it. Just because a redirect exists, it does not mean we must mention it in the article. Someone simply created it at some point because they thought it was a good idea. It isn't actually used anywhere. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree: why would we add such a rare designation? Wouldn't it make more sense to delete the redirect from Sol d which was created by  who creates lots of redirects, some of them useful, and I haven't assessed the others, so no criticism intended.  I suppose redirects do no harm.  I see we have all the other redirects, right up to Pluto and Eris (Sol j & k), so perhaps we should leave things as they are.    D b f i r s   06:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Earth as a dwarf planet
According to the IAU's own definition of what a planet is, because Earth has not cleared its orbit (2016 HO3), it is to be considered a dwarf planet. It's a fact, and until the IAU changes its definition of what a planet is, Earth is a dwarf planet.Kellner21 (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No, you misunderstand what clearing an orbit means. ( ... or are you claiming that Theia (planet) is still around? ... or that there is an unobserved planet identical to Earth on the opposite side of the sun? )   D b f i r s   20:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See Doppelgänger (1969 film). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I would recommend finding a reliable source for that claim before adding it to Wikipedia. The IAU does not consider Earth a dwarf planet. If you personally think their definitions are inconsistent, Wikipedia articles are not the forum to express that opinion. A2soup (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017
dirt orb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5C:6C00:654:3EA6:274A:3F08:7B77 (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2017
chnage the photo to a more recent photo of earth Professoralkan (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

name for the shape of earth
can the word "(geoid)" be insert after the words oblate spheroid.After all it is geoid in shapeFORCE RADICAL (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure that's a good idea. "Geoid" is a completely theoretical but specific shape, since it refers to the shape of the Earth after you eliminate all natural forces against it. Oblate spheroid is less defined, but more accurately reflects the actual shape of the Earth. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Geoid means "earth-shaped", so it would be tautology.   D b f i r s   18:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, the word geoid is used in many of the references, but not in the article, so perhaps we should mention the word. I've made an attempt at explaining in simple English, but please improve or remove as you think appropriate.    D b f i r s   18:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Technical correction request on second paragraph
The phrase: 'During one orbit around the Sun, Earth rotates about its axis over 365 times' is misleading, if not incorrect - the earth actually rotates over 366 times, but due to completing a rotation around the sun in that time, that translates into 365 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.171 (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Mantle Convection Disputed
Mantle convection is mentioned in the 3rd paragraph and also in the "Heat" section, including mantle plumes. This is disputed in numerous sources. There is no direct evidence from seismic tomography, as the mantle is essentially transparent to seismic waves. Signals from the core boundary (CB) suggest a variable CB terrain, but no clear evidence of convection. There is upper mantle convection, a side effect of plate tectonics, which has more to do with surficial causes such as erosion, deposition of sedimentary belts on cratonal margins (geoclines), and also frequent major asteroid or comet "ET" impacts, which geologists are loathe to consider. They like to see their subject matter as a solitary planet devoid of ET interference, which is a predominately random phenomenon (but consider the Cretaceous Quiet Period). The controversial nature of the mantle convection should be clearly noted in this & other Wikipedia articles, even if the editors do not wish to take sides. Not referring to it at all should be seen as clear case of POV rules violation. hgwb 10:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wmo.asu.edu/world-highest-temperature
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616025722/http://wmo.asu.edu/world-lowest-temperature to http://wmo.asu.edu/world-lowest-temperature
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304002646/http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/paleoclimate.htm to http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/paleoclimate.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713053611/http://scienceweek.com/2004/rmps-23.htm to http://scienceweek.com/2004/rmps-23.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. AManNamedEdwan (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070407011249/http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/default.shtml to http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/default.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319181621/http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~keken/papers/Vlaar_EPSL94.pdf to http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~keken/papers/Vlaar_EPSL94.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424104419/http://home.online.no/~sigurdhu/WGS84_Eng.html to http://home.online.no/~sigurdhu/WGS84_Eng.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories
This article's only category is Category:Earth, which is a subcategory of Category:Planets of the Solar System, Category:Places, Category:Terrestrial planets, etc. The problem with this arrangement is that most of Earth's subcategories have nothing to do with these parent categories. For example, "Earth deities" and "Globster" are listed in subcategories of "Habitable zone planets". I boldly moved the Earth article to the Habitable Zone Planets category but it was reverted. Any thoughts? Dlthewave (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

BYA, GYA, GA?
Anyone else notice in the article that billion years ago, and other references to it, are in GYA, or GA. That doesn't make sense to me, can anyone explain why GYA isn't BYA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandyHK (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * For BYA one would have to specify long or short scale. I don't mind what units are used as long as they are linked to an explanation.   D b f i r s   19:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017
11:35-4YZ:We plan to improve this text by stating recently discovered information about Earth and what society must know. We will keep this message short and simple, only to let the additions have a greater effect on readers. Thank you. 2600:1011:B15A:A169:2DDF:360D:6FA8:D9C8 (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by one editor: I, for one, would prefer that you (plural?) suggest your improvements here so that they can be checked by independent editors.  The fact that the only other edit from this IP address was vandalism, suggests that it would be safer to retain the protection.  Original research has no place in Wikipedia.  Please find somewhere else to publish new research.    D b f i r s   09:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Earth is not "otherwise known as the Globe"...
The phrase "the globe" refers to a model of the Earth, as discussed in the article for Globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.40.111.98 (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm unhappy with most of the old lead paragraph. I've made a proposal on the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal of the metaphor "globe", and SF words for the earth. You seem to have also removed some references for the age.  Was there a reason for this? It's not quite a "grass is green" statement.    D b f i r s   19:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I did; some references from the second paragraph are in the lead. Please feel free to restore any references I removed. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I seem to have mis-read your edit. All is well.  Thank you for your improvement to the article.   D b f i r s   06:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Wrong value of Equatorial and Prime meridian?
From this text "Earth" and from this other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator, to have doubtful exact values ​​of Equatorial and Prime meridian, in each values the number of meters is very different surpassing variations of 10 meters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmbeer (talk • contribs) 06:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Orbital Period
The Orbital Period of Earth, as verified in the link provided below, is not 365.26 days but is rather 365.24 days.

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

The page is locked, so this information can't be flagged as disputed.
 * The sidereal year (which is relevant here) is really about 365.26 days long. 365.24 days make up a solar year. Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111031182613/http://news.yahoo.com/various-7-billionth-babies-celebrated-worldwide-064439018.html to https://news.yahoo.com/various-7-billionth-babies-celebrated-worldwide-064439018.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Average elevation of land
Continuing the talk section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Earth/Archive_9#Average_elevation_of_land The currently given Wikipedia value for the average elevation of the land is 840m. But that value has apparently been copied from source to source since 1921 or before. They hadn't even mapped the topography of the world accurately back then. An apparently newer number which looks more trustworthy is found in a hypsometric curve graph at https://globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/topography/topography.html It appears that curve must have been calculated with a computer and thus probably used modern satellite data. And since it states the average as 841m, it is apparently not just derivative of the 840m number. I'm going to update the article with the 841m number and a reference to that page. Mindbuilder (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah. The "841" comes from an image  on the page, which is why I didn't notice it earlier.  I still don't think that claiming this value is exact to the order of 1 meter is accurate or useful. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

But now I've found a source http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JB006176/full which says "The value of average continent elevation above sea level at present is 0.835 km. Both these values are from Turcotte and Schubert [2002]." I'm not sure if continent elevation is the same as all land elevation. And I'm not sure how thick ice shelfs over the ocean are dealt with. At any rate, we're only talking about 6m here. Mindbuilder (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Schubert says he doesn't remember where they got the 835m number. I found a hypsographic curve from NOAA https://globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/topography/topography.html that gives 797m as the land average. It says its land elevation data from ETOPO1 has accuracy no better than 10m. NOAA talks about its data sources for both the elevation of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps and the bedrock beneath, but I didn't notice them saying which they used for the average.


 * This hawaii.edu hypsometric curve https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/content/group/2c084cc1-8f08-442b-80e8-ed89faa22c33/book/chapter10/crust.htm gives 875m as "average elevation of exposed land". Mindbuilder (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This article has a good discussion of Earth radius and average land height.
 * http://frederic.chambat.free.fr/geophy/inertie_pepi01/article.pdf
 * It makes it clear that the 840m and higher values are no longer likely enough to be worth mentioning. The 875m value is from way back in 1933. Unfortunately the Chambat article doesn't give its current value for average land height but only how much the land height adds to the average radius. Without knowing exactly what fraction of the planet he considers to be land it doesn't give us a specific value for average land height. The only specific modern value for average land height I can find is 797m at the NOAA page https://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_surface_histogram.html It's consistent with Chambat2001 and is based on an even newer 1 minute digital elevation model. I have no credible source for any other specific value or significantly different range, so I'm going to put just 797m in the article. Mindbuilder (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't really like putting three significant digits on this 797m number. But if I round it I'd have to round it to 800m, and then people might think there was only one significant digit. Even worse, if we round it to 800m people might think we rounded 840m to 800m and they might go with the 840m number thinking it is more precise. Besides, while the 7 is a digit of very little significance, it probably does have a little bit of significance, so it seems fair, if only barely, to put it in. Another way we could do it is to list it as .80km, but I don't like that either. Mindbuilder (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Mindbuilder (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't quite see the problem with using the 797 figure. If it seems overly precise, perhaps we could do "797 ±10m". –dlthewave ☎ 01:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency with Theia page
I noticed that while the Wikipedia page for Theia is updated to reflect recent research (as of 2016) that the hypothetical collision with early Earth was head-on, not a glancing blow, like this article suggests. The Theia page cites to this article. This should be made consistent across the articles? I am not sure I am knowledgeable enough about the original research to verify that this reflects the latest and most accurate knowledge on the topic. Bshk93 (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003083543/http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.html to http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Fbsy25N9?url=http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ to http://science.hq.nasa.gov/oceans/physical/SST.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge "Moon" and "Asteroids and artificial satellites" into one section?
I wanted to suggest merging the sections "Moon" and "Asteroids and artificial satellites" into one section, perhaps then divided into subsections. I think this would make the article flow better, and the "Asteroids and artificial satellites" really doesn't contain enough information to stand on its own. I would suggest the name for the new section could simply be "Satellites" or "Natural and Artificial Satellites." From there, the section could then be subdivided into a moon and other satellites section. I hope this has not already been suggested before and if it has, I apologize, but would like to know the reasoning behind the decision to keep the structure the way it is. Thank you, Fritzmann2002 20:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2017
The earth is only about 6,00 years old and NOT 4 billion years old. The bible states that the world is about 6,000 years old and the scientist even say things that prove that the bible it true. Sh4vida (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The bible is a unreliable mythical story, not an evidence-based WP:RS source for an encyclopedia. Please read Age of the Earth and check the sources. --Zefr (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ... besides, the bible gives no such figure. The calculation is based on an assumption that no generations are omitted.    D b f i r s   21:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please reference the age of the Earth with the German wiki article. Says at least 4.6 billions years old! Thanks --  89.245.38.7 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * We don't use another Wikipedia article as a reference. We already have Monroe, Henshaw and Burchfield as references.  What reference does the German Wikipedia use?   Our article Age of the Earth slightly disagrees with your German figure.    D b f i r s   21:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The German Wiki should not be a reference, just to correct the inconsistencey. There are no references on the German Wiki article atm... so i will copy the age from here with references and correct it. Thanks for your help! --  LAZA74 (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Phylogenetic Tree image removed?
Hi all

An image on evolution of various life forms on earth was from the article, stating the reason "Remove image with "speculative" in caption. Doesn't add to "Life timeline" image, except speculation on what branched from what." Since the relevant section focuses on evolution of life on the planet, why should images relevant to the text be focused only on timeline? Timeline is only one aspect of evolution, how these changes occur and that "what branched from what" thing is one of the core aspects of evolutionary theory. I suggest that the image be restored or a be inserted, as without an image briefly describing the process, discussion of evolution of life on the planet is incomplete. Regards ubedjunejo (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I thank ubedjunejo for this discussion. The Earth is the section from which I removed the image, considering that there is a "Life timeline" image/table, which introduces a summary of the main articles: Abiogenesis and Evolutionary history of life. Both main articles use the same "Life timeline" image/table as here to summarize the origin of life and evolution. It's in those articles where more details should occur, as with the type of image proposed. This article should be more accessible to a general audience than the two linked main articles, which are more technical and are where an advanced reader might better understand and appreciate the proposed image, per WP:AUDIENCE. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 16:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:AUDIENCE says "Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully." User:HopsonRoad exactly, Earth is summary of Evolutionary history of life, but a summary which does not encompass even the core concepts is a useless summary. A summary should briefly desribe all the major aspects of the subject. As I have mentioned above, mentioning what without explaining how is no good idea, even so in summaries.Thanks ubedjunejo (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur completely with ubedjunejo's point that "what" without "how" provides a deficient picture of a topic. Reflecting on that, I reviewed Abiogenesis and Evolutionary history of life for some way to better summarize the origin of life and evolution in the section under discussion. I don't see an easy way to do it in the space allotted, especially since there are conflicting ideas about the genesis of the building blocks of life and different models of how the biosphere flipped from being anaerobic to being photosynthesis and oxygen-driven. One of my concerns about the suggested images is that most of the words contained therein are unfamiliar to most readers, who are not schooled in evolutionary biology. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 01:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi User:HopsonRoad, I appreciate your efforts in reading the articles and in trying to address the issue. You are right that space is limited. Even though, I find textual description of the section quite adequate, although a very brief mention of gene mutation and natural selection can be given in a sentence or two, with links in the text to articles on these. The image will do the rest. That's my whole point about image. Due to limited space detailed discussion of the process can neither be provided nor is it necessary. Benefit of image is that it will, in small space, add to text and will be self explanatory. As for your concern of terms in the image, even simpler images are present on commons page. But the image I proposed earlier, is more descriptive and reader can at the very least understand that they are life forms evolving from simpler ones. That's the whole point of the image. If you see in the timeline image, there too are terms that a person with no knowledge in geology and evolution may not understand, but the links are present and interested reader can follow the links. But, in my view, it will not be great if we do not do justice with the subject for the sake of simplicity of the reader. Brief theory is given, image will explain the rest, we may add links to those specific terms in the image description, which too need not be long. One sentence would suffice. What do you think? Regards, ubedjunejo (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply, ubedjunejo. This image struck me as one that both satisfies my desire to have an image show the phylogenetic tree of life and convey it simply. Unfortunately, the resolution of the image is way too poor. Perhaps you can find another one that either has easily recognizable images or words to convey the principle for the general reader. I appreciate your pointing me to this category of images, which shows that I over-reacted to the word "speculative" in my original edit. I still feel that it's important to speak to the general reader. Otherwise, I would stick with presence of representations of the phylogenetic tree of life in the main articles. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 03:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This image with its caption, probably would not have elicited my edit, because instead of saying "speculative", it contains references. It's the one that you suggested, above. Before substituting it, I would like to hear the perspective of other editors. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 04:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, there is certainly space for the small removed image, given that life is a major topic within the subject of Earth, and there is enough text in the section to bear an image. The (removed) Woese image is I think quite a long way preferable to the complex "circular" tree, and if a citation is needed (I don't think so) it is very readily citeable. For people new to the subject, the simpler presentation with the three main branches is far easier to grasp and less overwhelming, and it gives a good and up-to-date idea of the major kinds of life on Earth that has been rather well borne out by the intense research since it was first proposed. As for the word "speculative", it was probably not an ideal adjective (whoever put it there), but all scientific models are that to some extent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with Chiswick Chap; the removed image is much easier to understand and it's not hard to cite if need be. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I also concur with Chiswick Chap and Double sharp, the 'PhylogeneticTree,_Woese_1990.PNG' image seems more suitable for this article than the 'Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes - I also agree - the 'File:PhylogeneticTree, Woese 1990.PNG' is more suitable for the article than the 'File:Collapsed tree labels simplified.png' image. Drbogdan (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2018
Some of the information found in this article is incorrect due to the fact that new information about the earth has just been released. DoYouKnowDaWay (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Future vs Long Term Future & Tied vs Closely Tied
Dear User:Keith-264, thanks for your recent edits. But as I see it, your point of view is not entirely correct, since Future means anytime that is to come. As we know, Sun will become red giant in later stages of its life, its not going to happen in near future, as such, long-term future is the correct representation of the fact. Simply saying future of Earth is tied to Sun is incorrect also in the sense that there are other factors as well which may affect Earth's future in long or short run, such as huge asteroid impacts, gamma ray bursts aimed at Earth etc. When we say long term future it conveys the message properly that the evolution of sun will eventually destroy Earth in far future and that is certain. Same goes with Tied and Closely Tied, as Tied makes it exclusively to the sun. Regards --ubedjunejo 14:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubed junejo (talk • contribs)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GVr8TSgV?url=http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Earth to http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Earth

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018
2601:647:4201:F25A:98DC:F481:DDB0:DC42 (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You need to tell us what edit you want made.  Dbfir<i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  22:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

How does this work? "The diameter of the Earth at the equator is 43 kilometres (27 mi) larger" The Earth is only around 12km in diameter, so how can it be 43km larger in diameter in any dimension? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbzzn (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The diameter is more than 12,000 km (more than twelve million metres).  <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  17:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2018
Please add the following as the second sentence "It's also mostly harmless" Irishsausage42 (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ - fails WP:42 - :-} - Arjayay (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Access Dates for Refs
Hello, It appears that there is some edit warring between User:Dawnseeker2000 and User:Dhtwiki and User:Drbogdan. As a neutral observer, I wanted to start a new section here for discussion of whether Access Dates for references should be included or not included in the article. Please do not continue to revert the article until consensus is reached here.

Sincerely, Fritzmann2002 15:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think Drbogdan is not involved in this, nor has this become an edit war, at least so far ;) Normally, access dates are not necessary for books and journal references, but here we have google book links, so inclusion of access date is justified in my opinion.AhmadLX (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW - this is all news to me - no, I am not involved in any of this - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There has been some discussion on my talk page giving pros and cons for removing the access-date parameters. I see no compelling reason why they shouldn't be restored; no policy or consensus I'm oblivious to has been manifested. So, I'll restore them soon, per WP:BRD, before subsequent editing makes that difficult. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll just say that I'm thoroughly confused by the idea of adding accessdates to book or journal citations. These are static resources without risk of changing. While I would not editwar to keep them out, I certainly question why they were added in the first place. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Hunster: Access dates were included in book refs for which google books links are given, these links are not necessarily static and so access date should be there.--AhmadLX (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Access dates also can also help determine which archive snapshot to use if the link goes dead; and the parameter is used by bots for that purpose. In the past at least, archives and bots were less able to determine on their own which snapshots were useful and which showed just 404 errors or the like. They've gotten better at that recently, though. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no need to transmit details to the readers when there's no useful information presented. And leave Drbogdan alone. The guy's innocent! Dawnseeker2000  01:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The information is potentially useful if readers want to edit. These are not my citations, but at an article I more actively edit, the access-date parameter has proven useful as a pointer to the likeliest archive snapshot if the link goes dead. That's something less likely to happen with Google Books, which, I think, was the target of all the citations involved here. However, I instinctively don't like to see the parameters deleted. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * AhmadLX and Dhtwiki: That's fine. As I said, the accessdates don't harm anything, but they remain pointless in this situation. As far as I'm aware, archive services do not save the actual book portion of the Google Books pages (and I did just test this). — Huntster (t @ c) 02:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Mean anomaly misleading
Earth's mean anomaly is listed in this article as a static value, which is highly misleading. Earth's mean anomaly grows by approximately 1°/day.

Earth's orbital elements are listed in the sidebar:
 * semi-major axis
 * eccentricity
 * inclination
 * longitude of ascending node
 * argument of perihelion
 * mean anomaly

The first five elements are mostly fixed, but the mean anomaly constantly changes. Today, the article quotes a mean anomaly of 358.617°. '''This is equivalent to saying, "Today is approximately January 1st." ''' However, today is July 3rd, and Earth's mean anomaly is approximately 178°.

Possible fixes:
 * 1) remove mean anomaly (simplest)
 * 2) state mean anomaly with an explicit time reference, for example, Mean Anomaly: 358.017° as of 12:00 AM (TT) on 1 Jan 2000.
 * 3) create an auto-updating value, similar to people's ages (most complex)

This is also a problem for other solar system bodies on Wikipedia, including
 * Mercury
 * Venus
 * Jupiter
 * Saturn
 * Uranus
 * Neptune

Surprisingly, no mean anomaly is given for Mars.

To find mean anomaly on a given date: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mean+anomaly+of+earth+1+Jan+2000

Jaspast (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The infobox actually indicates that the elements are for epoch J2000.0, but it's hidden enough that both you and I (initially) missed it. I agree that it's potentially confusing, but perhaps anyone who is actually going to need the value should understand that it varies constantly and will probably notice the J2000 eventually? Maybe? A2soup (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't miss it. J2000 is specified, but still insufficient. J2000 doesn't specify an observation time--only the coordinate system being used.

An observation time would need to be specified explicitly. For example: Mean Anomaly: 358.017° as of 12:00 AM (TT) on 1 Jan 2000. Note that this is a different value than the value currently provided in the sidebar.

Also, there is no indication given anywhere that mean anomaly varies; nobody is going to figure that out on their own. Jaspast (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Internal heat budget
, though I reverted your edit, you make a good point. This article and Earth's internal heat budget have very different numbers for the proportions of heat originating from radiogenic and primordial heat. What makes it worse is that they both cite the same source: the 2002 edition of Turcotte and Schubert‘s book Geodynamics. I’m trying to see if I can find the appropriate part in the Google books version, but it’s not the whole thing. If anyone has access to the actual book, please chime in here and tell us what it says. — Gorthian (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I'm sure I've read about the internal heat budget of earth being roughly 50% radioactivity/50% heat of formation before - although it very well may have been from that article. I also attempted to look through that reference but found it incomplete. I'm looking for other sources now.

Bomb319 (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: I found an online source here - http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/07/earth-still-retains-much-its-original-heat. The 50/50 split is cited near the beginning. I will leave it up to you to determine whether or not this reference is enough to overturn the original.

Bomb319 (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * For the Turcotte and Schubert textbook, the 2nd Edition (2002) link is https://books.google.com/books?id=-nCHlVuJ4FoC&pg=PA136 and the 3rd Edition (2014) link is https://books.google.com/books?id=qksHAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA165. Both state that "...about 80% of the present-day surface heat flow can be attributed to the decay of radioactive isotropes presently in the Earth and about 20% comes from the cooling of the Earth." So...which one to believe? — Huntster (t @ c) 14:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Note on solar vs sidereal days
I amended the footnote about why there are more sidereal days than solar days in a year. It used to say: "The number of solar days is one less than the number of sidereal days because the orbital motion of Earth around the Sun causes one additional revolution of the planet about its axis." I think that explanation was clearly wrong, because the Sun obviously doesn't cause the Earth to revolve on its axis; the planet does that all by itself. So I changed it to: "The number of solar days in a year is one less than the number of sidereal days (the time it takes the Earth to revolve exactly 360 degrees around its axis) because a solar day is about 236 seconds longer than a sidereal day. Over a year, this discrepancy adds up to a full sidereal day." Feel free to improve on this if you can. But don't imply that the Sun causes the rotation of the Earth. Richard75 (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The revised version is not better because it has it backwards. Cause and effect are reversed! &minus;Woodstone (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Vague research about future loss of water in the oceans
The section "Future" makes the following statement: "Even if the Sun were eternal and stable, 27% of the water in the modern oceans will descend to the mantle in one billion years, due to reduced steam venting from mid-ocean ridges.[88]". This is so pared down that it's barely comprehensible ("reduced steam venting"?) so I checked the source. Okay, the source is an article from a scientific journal, but it has so many crucial figures and assumptions that are mere educated guesses that the projection can't be treated as a fact. The "27%" figure makes it sound scientific, but this figure is the outcome of mostly guesswork and raw extrapolations. The authors of the article admit that some of the variables are unknowable and that their projection is little more than a first guess. Crucially, there is no way of knowing the proportion between water on the surface (roughly=the oceans, freshwater plus frozen ice) and the amount of water molecules locked inside the heated rock of the earth's interior. Some researchers think it's 1 to 2, others 1 to 5, others 1 to 20. And there is no way either of knowing how fast some of the mantle water is released through ocean floor spreading, or even if that value is constant over geological time.

The statement should be removed: we really have no scientific knowledge of when or how such a drying up of the uppermost 1,000 m of the oceans would happen. 83.254.143.221 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Earth's surface is ~74% water
MODERATORS: 71% of Earth's surface is saltwater oceans and seas. ~3% of Earth's surface is freshwater lakes, rivers, canals, swamps, snow cover and ice. Therefore, ~74% of Earth's surface is liquid or frozen water. 2601:580:100:901E:35C8:FCCA:1910:57A6 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Earth is 4.54 billion-years-old
MODERATORS: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth 2601:580:100:901E:35C8:FCCA:1910:57A6 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That's what it says in both articles. What's the problem?   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  21:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"Earth formed over 4.5 billion years ago." is found in the Introduction. It needs to be changed to Earth is 4.54 billion-years-old. 2601:580:100:901E:35C8:FCCA:1910:57A6 (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * A more precise number is included in the "Formation" section - the current text is fine for the lead section. Mikenorton (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The inner most layer core
The inner core is made mostlyof iron. At 5,000-6,000°(9,000-10,800°F), it's about as scorching as the sun. There is so much pressure at the centre of Earth that, despite the heat, the inner core is solid. INTELLIGENT 1234 (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. The article more or less says the same thing already. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"Astronomical object"
There has been some dispute about whether the Earth can be categorized as an "astronomical object", so I thought I'd bring it here, just to bring any dispute out into the open. My reasoning is this: the Earth is a planet, and planets, considered as a class in general, are astronomical objects. The Earth is clearly a special case of such an object because we live here, but I don't believe this in any way contradicts its membership of the general class of astronomical objects.

Moreover, as has said, the Earth is indeed an astronomical object known since antiquity; the concept of the Earth as a planet at the center of the Universe was described by the ancient Greeks: see Geocentric model. -- The Anome (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not quite that simple. The ancient Greek geocentric model certainly considered the Earth to be the centre of the Universe, but it certainly did not consider it to be a planet. The categorisation may still be justified as there were ancient heliocentrists such as Aristarchus of Samos, but I am certainly not an expert on the history of science in classical antiquity, and I would rather have someone who knows more than me on the topic weigh in. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that Earth, as a planet, is an astronomical object. But, when you say "astronomical object known since antiquity", you cannot categorize it as an astronomical object. It is like saying "force of gravity was known to ancients", just because they could see things falling down. But even if you persist, I still have problem with "known since antiquity" thing. You come to know about something, that you didn't know previously. Ancients lived on Earth and as matter of fact knew, by default, of its existence. As such "known" doesn't apply. I couldn't find where Joe Kress has said " Earth is indeed an astronomical object known since antiquity", but even if he did, it cannot be used as authority. It would be better if you present his argument. Thanks.  AhmadLX  ( talk ) 18:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I haven't found the exact page, I suspect sufficient detail is provided by J. L. E. Dreyer, History of the Planetary Systems from Thales to Kepler (1906). — Joe Kress (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My argument is in my summary: The ancient Greeks, thus antiquity, knowingly placed the Earth at the center of and as a part of the Universe, thus astronomical, and described its size, thus regarding it as a spherical object, hence an "astronomical object known since antiquity". — Joe Kress (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is your own extrapolation. "Earth was at center" is entirely different from "it was known as astronomical object". As I have discussed above, and on my talk page, and in my earlier revert, Earth is not astronomical object by definition in this sense. They considered "astronomical" anything that was beyond Earth. Earth was not beyond Earth. Earth was Earth to them, not a planet. Just acknowledging Earth's existence, which they had to off course, makes it astronomical??  AhmadLX  ( talk ) 14:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with AhmadLX. "Astronomy" implies study of the stars, and to me "astronomical object" known "since antiquity" would seem to apply to those bodies that the ancients could observe without the aid of a telescope: the seven "planets" of antiquity (sun, moon, Mercury ... Saturn) and those stars bright enough to be seen without magnification. In other words, it is useful to make such distinctions, as opposed to trying to somewhat guess whether Earth was considered a planet, since it would only be conceptually considered as such. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Geminus states (Dreyer, p. 131) that "astronomy ... makes known the arrangement of the heavenly bodies, it investigates the figure and size and distance of earth and sun and moon, the eclipses and conjunctions of stars and the quality and quantity of their motions; ..." So he includes Earth, its figure (shape) and size and distance, in astronomy, thus Earth is an astronomical object according to Geminus, an ancient Greek. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Joe Kress has it exactly right. "Astronomical" means "relating to astronomy" (see dictionary definitions), and astronomy studies (among other things) the relationship between the Earth and other celestial bodies. As a subject of astronomical study, the Earth is therefore an astronomical object. Add the Geminus citation, and the case is clear. -- The Anome (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Modern dictionary definitions aren't likely to tell us what the ancients thought, and Geminus talks of "...figur[ing] size and distance..." without actually saying that Earth is an astronomical object, which Aristotelian physics would preclude one from believing. According to Eduard Jan Dijksterhuis, in The Mechanization of the World Picture, part 1, chapter 79:

"...the idea that the earth might quite well be in motion was certainly not beyond the intellectual horizon of Greek astronomers, but it never had more than the status of an interesting conceptual possibility."
 * Dhtwiki (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Dreyer discussed at least two instances where the ancient Greeks attributed to Earth a characteristic of an astronomical body: Aristotle stated (pp. 118–119) Earth must be a sphere because it casts a circular shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse - casting a shadow is a characteristic of an astronomical body (if it doesn't produce its own light). Aristarchus of Samos proposed [pp. 136–139) that the Sun and stars were fixed and that Earth rotated once a day and revolved around the Sun once a year in the middle of the zodiac, what we call the ecliptic (see his note) - movement, either rotation or revolution, is a modern characteristic of an astronomical body (fixed at the center of the Universe is not acceptable by modern standards, although fixed was required for Earth by most ancient Greeks). — [[User:Joe Kress|Joe Kress]] (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I couldn't give a rat's ass what crusty old Greeks thought, Earth is a planet, and planets are astronomical objects. People knew Earth existed in antiquity. So it's an astronomical object known since antiquity. End of story. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Cooler than liquid Helium ;) Everything in existance has a beginning → Universe exists → Universe had a beginning (Big Bang) → Ancients knew Universe existed → Ancients knew Big Bang happened. Master stroke. One day you guys will hit -273.15C. Best of luck ;)  AhmadLX  ( talk ) 18:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Earth's polar circumference
Flatening of the Earth and its Equatorial Radius are given/measured values. They are used to calculate Polar Radius and Polar Circumference. f = (a-b)/a, where a - Equatorial Radius, b - Polar Radius and f - flatening b = a*(1-f) And Polar Circumference = Pi*2*b Instead, the value of Polar Circumference is taken from experimental data and it is contradicory with other values. My proposition: Eq. Radius and flatening should be taken from external sources and the rest should be calculated. Another proposistion: on other wikipedia pages about this topic, the Polar Circumference is not listed, so it removes the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.64.178.233 (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead image caption
I think a mention of “Earth” should be omitted per WP:CAP, which states that the subject of the picture should be clearly identified without stating the obvious. As is clear, it is obvious that the image is of Earth for two reasons:
 * 1) It is the top image on the “Earth” article depicting a planet; what else would it be.
 * 2) Everyone (except people in undiscovered tribes) is aware that this is the appearance of Earth.

Upon attempting to make these obvious changes, I was stopped and need consensus as a result.  IWI  ( chat ) 22:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC) As mentioned above, the mention of Earth in the lead image caption is unnecessary, especially considering the guideline WP:CAP "without detailing the obvious".  IWI  ( chat ) 04:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * REMOVE. It is unnecessary duplicity. The topic is obvious. All stylebooks admonish against repetition, including WP:CAP. If it were standalone (i.e., "Photo: Earth"). then I'd leave it because it needs some caption. However, it is not standalone. The caption is "The Blue Marble photograph", and "The Blue Marble" is a famous photograph. It makes no more sense to add "Earth" here than it does to write the caption: "The Mona Lisa painting of a woman." In fact, the Mona Lisa page is quite a good argument as the photo caption is "Mona Lisa", not "The Mona Lisa painting." The subject is evident from the page. —Kriceslo (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * REMOVE As above, unnecessary duplicity, as subject is the Earth, and is just about impossible to mistake for anything else. WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove per WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS — JFG talk 18:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral – Use the replacement proposal being discussed below, which works with or without mentioning "Earth". — JFG talk 11:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The one below. Almost a textbook example of a caption: it clearly, concisely and usefully describes the circumstances around the photo. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  22:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Replacement proposal
If there is agreement to remove "Earth" from this caption, I would suggest rephrasing it thus:

Opinions or other suggestions welcome. — JFG talk 22:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is moving in the right direction, but calling it an image of the whole/entire planet is not entirely accurate. Among the missing bits are Europe, the Americas, the Arctic, and most of Asia. Best I can come up with just now is "the first comprehensive photograph of the planet". "Limb-to-limb" would be accurate, but jargon... Just plain Bill (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Limbs are definitely out, I'd say. How about "first full-view photograph of the planet" (which, I suspect, doesn't really mean anything and is therefore not wrong) or something like that? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That would work. It's pretty much along the lines of what I was going for with "comprehensive." Unobstructed, uncropped...? Just plain Bill (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This Apollo guy was a stellar photographer! — JFG talk 02:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Let us not distract the reader with the Apollo flight number. — JFG talk 02:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Marble first. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent! — JFG talk 02:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My work is done here. Up! UP!! AND AWAY!!!  <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Marble first. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent! — JFG talk 02:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My work is done here. Up! UP!! AND AWAY!!!  <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the latter most.  IWI  ( chat ) 11:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm too late to sway opinion toward keeping "the Earth" in the caption, but it strikes me that you could've said that, instead of "the planet", and been slightly more concise here, if conciseness was a goal. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Come to think of it "the planet" is a periphrase for "Earth", and does not necessarily help readers. I would support amending the caption to:
 * Not sure whether "of Earth" or "of the Earth" would be best grammatically. What do you think? — JFG talk 09:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps "the first full-view photograph of planet Earth"? That sounds a bit more grandiose… — JFG talk 09:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to say that, while I generally take a scorched-earth approach to concision, I realized later that once you say the planet, which you pretty much have to do if you're going to say first full-view photograph of, then you may as well go back to the Earth i.e. the last proposal above. I'd skip planet Earth -- too fancy. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ... first full-view photograph of Earth... I like it. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ... first full-view photograph of Earth... I like it. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

closest planet to Earth
on the dark side of Mercury, temperatures average 110 K. The planet is usable for something, and is the closest to Earth, and the other planets. Worthy of note. X1\ (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, the temperature of Mercury is rather irrelevant to the article about Earth. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a response to your ES of "completely irrelevant, no one will colonize mercury" from my ES of regarding multiple significances: closest and importance to humans (relevant for space colonization from Earth: shortest distance to all planets (a base, doesn't need permanent human settlement), more possible since less radiation on darkside). X1\ (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * continue BRD or I'll assume to revert your deletion. X1\ (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to discuss. This may be relevant to Earth's orbit or Solar system, but it not relevant on Earth. You have been bold, you were revert, now it is you who must gain consensus. Feel free to ask for more opinions at WT:AST however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)