Talk:Earth/Archive 17

Recent edits to lead section possibly problematic
I am concerned with some recent good-faith changes to this article over the past week or so. 50-60 edits have been made in this period, primarily to the lead section. Not only has the section increased in length by over 50%, but I believe that overly technical terms have been introduced and the overall grammaticality has suffered. As it is a Featured Article, I would expect better conformance to MOS:INTRO.

The following sentence, for example, is not very grammatical:

Compare with the same passage from before these edits:

Again, I believe that these edits are being made in good faith. But I fear they risk decreasing the quality of a well-written Featured Article. Fowlerism (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for writing on the talk page and being so considerate. Well I agree that the sentances are still too convoluted (I will never pick up a job in literature, I am afraid). But I am working on it. I first tried to introduce a more complete overview of the issues that are relevant for Earth. I have realized how giant Earth as a topic is because of its totality as the home of so many relevant things, acknowledging that alot of complex terms/links have been added to the introduction now. But since I think it is important to give a comprehensive overview of the main topics relating to Earth I am for keeping a rich introduction, but yes a better wording is needed. This I am working on now, as you can see with my last edits, trying to increse text-quality. Thank you again for being considerate. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have the energy to do anything more than comment here (long COVID, boohoo), but I think there are main things that need to be improved
 * The readability is extremely low. Hemingway app estimates that this text is suitable for post-graduates. In a broad topic like earth, we'd like to aim for people with 10 years less education.
 * The text feels like a wall of blue. There is definitely overlinking in there (we don't need to introduce AE).
 * Given it's such an important topic, and it has recently gone through a FAR, wouldn't it be better to temporarily return to the previous version and work on a new lead here on talk? My personal preference is always for shorter paragraphs, as those are easier to digest. I think important information is now lost among less important information. Femke (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And I now see that there are thing(s) in the lede that are not found in the body (the unnecessary detail of the solar constant), which would make it fail another FA. Femke (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Following your suggestion Femke, I have restored the lead section to how it was before the recent edits. please make suggestions here to allow a consensus to be reached on the language and content used in the lead section before restoring any of your edits. Mikenorton (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I was working on the readability. No one was  substantially joining in for a week. As long as no one is considering what I tried to improve and no one suggesting concrete improvements, I am sorry but I am out. You have my final from today, do and participate but I have worked on this too much for this if it is just undone. Ill answer to proper improvement suggestions but an undo just like that makes me just to leave. I am looking forward to your work. PS: you also undid changes that were not about the lead text, also by others; I dont understand why. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * PS: I didnt plan to go so deep and long on the lead, but it just happend, so my apologies for the big changes without discussion, but I was and am happy to work together to give readers a good introduction to Earth (the previous/current version is not such a thing, it is a many edits stiched together text lacking in logic and content. That said I did use the original version and just tried to arrange it more logically and detailed. I agree some links can be left out, but thats no effort to do. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * sorry for not responding earlier. If you can copy your version to talk, that should allow somebody to combine the best of the two versions. The current text is good in length imo (about 50 words of growth space for my maximum lead length preference). Lack of logic is what would worry me. Femke (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding the length I dont totally agree, since there are similarly big topics/articles (e.g. United States) where the lead is similarly long, but I am the last one to be against cuting it short (if content isnt lost).Nsae Comp (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new text
To be constructive, comparing the previous/current version with mine on HemingwayApp then there is not so much the difference in problematic sentances, but rather that I seem to have constructed the same amount of sentances but with more text. So that would mean for me to break down the content/sentances that I have provided in more sentances, choping the content into smaller easier digestable sentances. I really believe it is not fair to the readers to withhold a good overview because of a lack of effort put into puting it into better sentances. Something that I did today and was eager to do together.Nsae Comp (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * We'll get there eventually, don't worry :). I will be slow, so hopefully there are some more prose or FA experts lurking here :). Femke (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tony1 has made quite a few prose exercises that have helped me write somewhat close to FA level. WP:PLUSING may be useful for you. Femke (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Since I seem to be addicted to this lead, despite all the work being reverted, here my first proposal for the first para with less convaluted sentances (thanks to HemingwayApp). Choped up in a bit patronizingly small fingerfood sentances and keeping at the same time all of its content. Fascinatingly it even got shorter:

Proposals first paragraph

 * Nsae Comp (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Even shorter and less patronizing:
 * I could change also the rest of the paras into such a form, if it meets approval? Nsae Comp (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I could change also the rest of the paras into such a form, if it meets approval? Nsae Comp (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it would be easier for us to follow if you propose small changes to the lead. Because I had to keep flipping backwards and forwards to see the difference from the text above to current lead. For example you could start a new talk section to say why links to land hemisphere and magnetosphere should be in the first para. Or whatever it is you actually want to change in that para. I know this would be time consuming, but this is a featured article which presumably gets lots of views. Also probably easiest to agree what is to go in in principle before tweaking the English. I cannot see much wrong with the existing English apart from I propose changing "to harbour and support" to "to have evolved". Re content I think the existing last sentence of that para should be rewritten so that plate tectonics comes before tectonic plates. But, as it would take me a long time to figure out a good sentence for that, I am just going to make the tiny change in the first sentence - lets see if anyone reverts it. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Nsae Comp! In the climate change article, we usually do stripe out / underline when proposing new text, and explain each significant change. It works well, but is rather time-consuming. Not a request, just a suggestion. I've got some language, and some content comments.
 * I don't know what problem we're solving. You indicate lack of logic, but I'm not sure how the old paragraph had a lack of logic.
 * Liquid water dominates with 71% Earth's surface. -> not grammatical
 * The key guideline we should look at is Manual of Style/Lead section, which states: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.". A land hemisphere is not introduced in the body of the article, so cannot appear in the lead section. It is quite a niche framing, so I do not think it belongs in the article at all. I'm confident is does not belong in the lede.
 * There are more instances of this. In March, somebody introduced the word gulf into the lede, which we don't talk about in the body. Your proposal solves that issue. Maybe a broader recheck is necessary.
 * What is water ice? Even scientific literature typically does not put the word water in front of ice, unless maybe in astonomy? Ice suffices.
 * Ocean -> ocean
 * The text doesn't flow (I think you recognise the same in the word "patronising"). You've sought to make the text more readable by mostly reducing sentence length, rather than sentence ánd word length, which would lead to more natural-sounding language. When we agree on content, we can always ask for help at WP:GOCE. I'm struggling with the same issue often. Femke (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To reply to some points of you: Nsae Comp (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * e.g. regarding logic: the first para mentions the land percentage before the water percentage, this was one of the first things that I switched because Earth's water surface is the more important and special thing about Earth. The latter is something that I tried to flash out by adding "Its hydrosphere is the only one in the Solar System sustaining large bodies of liquid surface water.", I find that very important ... I tried to continue the logic of the first sentance of highlighting the specialness of Earth and tried to move all related topics about Earth's water & surface together. Surface was then the thread that bridged to tectonics etc. ... such textual threads are what I tried to build and group and what I meant with logic. PS: magnetosphere is an important element of Earth to grasp Earth in its entirety and it fits at that spot thematically.
 * Liquid water: well its my poor talent trying to word it correctly, because the common phrase of "water covers the surface" is wrong in planrtary cases, liquid water IS in this case the surface. If you manage to write it correctly without sounding off, then you get my personal nobel literature price.
 * Water ice: well astronomy is exactly why I wrote it like that, Earth is an astronomical object first and formost. But whatever, ice will do too, even if it is confusing when in astronomy people dont add what kind of ice, but thats maybe more an issue of other astronomical articles where it is not clear that it is water ice.
 * Ocean is correct since I wrote about the Ocean. For Earth the Ocean is the dominant surface characteristic afterall and not to be understood in its arbitrary oceans-sections at the lead level. I find this important when talking about Earth from a global perspective, as this article inherently should be, especially when considering climate change and environmental impact.
 * You can rewrite the sentances as much as you want, I am all about the content and issues raised, language is not my focus or thing.


 * I don't mind which percentage comes first, so I've changed it to be water first.
 * Which statement(s) in the body do you rely on to say "Its hydrosphere is the only one in the Solar System sustaining large bodies of liquid surface water."? Not sure about the grammar here, it feels slightly off. (not a native speaker).
 * The word seismic is jargon. Is earthquake a synonym?
 * The word cover in English has two meanings: extend over (the meaning here), and to be on top of (which would be incorrect). I've put the word in a different place, where there is no ambiguity remaining.
 * I'd say: earth is foremost the place that readers live. Natural-sounding text (not too academic) is usually best.
 * I've looked up some style guides, and I don't see ocean capitalised. I've removed the word global, as it's unnecessary if one changes the article (a global ocean vs the ocean).
 * P.S. It's sent e nce. Femke (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding o/Ocean well I seem to be coming too much from astronomy, since ocean can mean any ocean, and the Ocean, well, the Ocean. But fair enough if it is not established enough. At Moon we had similar problems: capitalized Moon for the Moon is accepted today, but funnily enough "Lunar" not (we agreed it will be resolved in 2092, when we have been to more moons and spent more lunar quality time ... same here I guess when we have been to more extraterrestrial (subsurface) oceans. The usual problem: wikipedia can only work with what is established enough. As I said: fair enough.
 * PS: regarding land hemisphere; well I must admit it is also still a seldom used concept, but I found it very useful to underline the non-dominant nature of Earth's land-surface. So similar issue as above I guess. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * regarding water as significant difference to other Solar Sys objects the text-body states:"The abundance of water on Earth's surface is a unique feature that distinguishes it from other planets in the Solar System." Nsae Comp (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: regarding land hemisphere; the article does indeed mention it, it just doesnt label it exactly the same:"The Northern Hemisphere contains 68% of the world's land mass." ... but this might very well link to the article about water/land hemisphere. I wouldnt mind navigating around the term "land hemisphere", but I very much vote for pointing out in the lead that water and land have significantly higher concentrations on opposing sides of the planet. I would be ok to write something like:"For example the Ocean spreads with the Pacific also allmost exclusively over one half of Earth's surface area. The Souther hemisphere is congruent with that area, so is the Northern hemisphere with most of Earth's land". ... or in any other wording constellation. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for your edits regarding the ocean and water cover, but I want to argue for trying to keep the word hydrosphere (even more so as with magnetosphere) because I find it indeed patronizing to withhold such a concept out of the reason of not being known enough, since Wikipedia has afterall the mission to inform and give orientation and not just pack everything in a giant body of text where everyone gets lost in neatly cited mass of details without a guidingly introducing overview. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I must say the first para looks good to me now; I can painfully agree on quite some things being cut that I proposed (e.g. linking to planetaty surface, magmetic activity, or even magnetosphere), but what I really find necessary is to include the sentance about why Earths hydrosphere is special (in the Solar System) + I really would like to see the reference about the solar wind in it, because it is a very important factor in planetary issues (e.g. its the reason why other inner planets have no liquid surface water). So if those two things find their way then for my part is the first para ticked as done. Nsae Comp (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason I did not use the word hydrosphere is it's already used in the second paragraph, so would be repetitive. I think the sentence is ungrammatical Its hydrosphere is the only one in the Solar System sustaining large bodies of liquid surface water, so I'm hesitant to add it. Pinging @Clayoquot, as her prose quality is better than mine.
 * As for the text about the magnetosphere, I'm not sure how that all works, but maybe @Mikenorton can comment. I'm also not quite sure what "Earth's core remains active, generating Earth's magnetic field." means. I thought the word active means something like "liquid and convectively active", which isn't true for the entirety of the core. But maybe the word active means something different.. Femke (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the core, you're right that it's only convection in the liquid outer part that generates the magnetic field - the inner core just provides the heat source for the convection. As to the magnetosphere, we could turn that text around "This shapes Earth's magnetosphere that deflects destructive Solar winds." So perhaps in combination "Earth's liquid outer core generates the magnetic field that shapes Earth's magnetosphere, deflecting destructive Solar winds." Mikenorton (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I must say that beside the water-specialness and solar wind I forgot to say that the reference about land and water surface areas dominating opposite hemisphere is also quite good for particularly an overview like the lead (once again underlining the water-world character of Earth).Nsae Comp (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's WP:undue. Do you have references that give so much prominence to that idea? Femke (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I cant say I do, even if it is self evident for everyone that has a globus or can use Google Earth. I guess I have to be satisfied that the lead states that most of the planet's surface is water/ocean and leave it up to the reader to think about how the water (or land) takes up the area. For me it was logical to describe a surface by coverage as well as distribution. PS: I dont think it needs to be prominent to be due, if it describes/illustrates a very much due issue namely how Earth's surface looks like, which is a perfect way to introduce a terrestrial planet. Nsae Comp (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "hydrosphere" is overly technical for the lead. How about "While water and ice are found on other planets and moons in the Solar System, only Earth sustains large bodies of liquid surface water"? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx. Fine with me. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A bit shorter and showing that there are other places with large amounts of water:"While large amounts of water can be found throughout the Solar System, only Earth sustains large bodies of liquid surface water." Nsae Comp (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the unrelated reply above, but to not loose the suggestion of  and to finish some sentences: how about taking Mikenorton's sentence? > "Earth's liquid outer core generates the magnetic field that shapes Earth's magnetosphere, deflecting destructive Solar winds." Nsae Comp (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. for consistency: solar winds, rather than Solar wind. Femke (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nsae Comp (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have an issue with the sentence about plate tectonics - all versions state that plate movement is driven by a convecting mantle. The driving force for plate tectonics is certainly a matter of debate, see this recent paper for a review of the potential drivers, but most geoscientists think that it is some sort of "top-down" process, driven mainly by subduction, the so-called "slab pull" force, with "mantle drag" being a secondary force, although of local importance. That said, I'm struggling to come up with some words to convey this simply. Mikenorton (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also note that the body of the article doesn't describe the driving force at all. Mikenorton (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont have a problem with just saying "Earth's surface rests on several slowly moving rigid tectonic plates." ... possibly with an addition that Earth is volcanic and seismic active ;) Nsae Comp (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How about this more complete sentance in my opinion (and rigid is gone):"Earth's surface rests on several slowly moving tectonic plates, producing belts of mountains, volcanos and earthquakes." Nsae Comp (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Following that suggestion, how about "Earth's surface layer is formed of several slowly moving tectonic plates, interacting to produce mountains, volcanoes and earthquakes."? Mikenorton (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Thinkinh; or is instead of mountains "topography" better because otherwise we get people to add all kind of topographic elements like rifts, etc.? Nsae Comp (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't personally think that will be an issue and even completely flat topography is still topography. Could have "mountain ranges" rather than just "mountains". Mikenorton (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I would use the space of an extra word to find a word that summurizes valleys, rifts, etc. So for example:"Earth's surface layer is formed of several slowly moving tectonic plates, interacting to produce valleys, mountains, volcanoes and earthquakes." Nsae Comp (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or "faults" instead of valleys. Nsae Comp (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither faults nor valleys I think, perhaps "basins" so - "Earth's surface layer is formed of several slowly moving tectonic plates, interacting to produce mountain ranges, basins, volcanoes and earthquakes." Mikenorton (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I like the one with only mountain(s) (ranges), volcanoes and earthquakes. Basins is minor jargon imo, and not necessary. Femke (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the suggestion ""Earth's surface layer is formed of several slowly moving tectonic plates, interacting to produce mountain ranges, volcanoes and earthquakes." I would go for "mountain ranges" rather then just "mountains", because a large proportion of mountains are also volcanoes. I know that leaving out topographic lows like oceanic trenches is missing out some of the overall picture, but those three things that result from plate tectonics are the ones that our readers are likely to be familiar with - "basins" less so - we don't even have a decent article to link it to, as I don't think that depression (geology) really does the job. Mikenorton (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I tell my self that "mountain ranges" imply valleys (and in an associative way also trenches) etc., so I would say I am ready to put it into the lead as suggested ("Earth's surface layer is formed of several slowly moving tectonic plates, interacting to produce mountain ranges, volcanoes and earthquakes."). Nsae Comp (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC) ✅ I took the liberty to add the sentence because everyone who commented was fine with it now. Only sentence missing if you ask me is the one about Earth being the only place with liquid surface water; see above! Nsae Comp (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont want to fuzz and start a big discussion, but I find the sentence about the polar regions a bit without connection. So firstly I would put it inbetween the water and land surface sentences. It fits imho also because ice is something inbetween those two. But on the other hand it doesnt fit into either percentage of water/land. Secondly I would write to put it more in relation with the water sentence the following way:"Water in the form of ice covers most of Earth's polar regions." or "At Earth's polar regions the surface consists mostly of ice"? ... but somehow mentioning the poles isnt worth it alltogether. For Mars e.g. it would because it is the only place with water, but for Earth's water it is trivial. So if the poles are mentioned it should be about them as a climate zone (more so than about its position in the magnetic field). So leave as it is, move, rewrite, take out, refocus; I am for all of it, just wanted to raise the issue; though tending to taking it out considering the doctrine to shorten the lead (then there is also more space for the note of Earth's water in the Solar System ;p) Nsae Comp (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to go even further since I just realized that the 71% do not include lakes, raising like with the issue of polar ice the question how water coverage is dealt with in describing Earth's surface. We might as well write, that "Water is allmost omnipresent on Earth's surface, with about 72% of it being made up of liquid water. The ocean covers virtually all of that area, leaving 1% to lakes and rivers." ... or even ... "While large amounts of water can be found throughout the Solar System, only Earth sustains liquid surface water. About 72% of the Earth's surface is made up of water. The ocean covers virtually all of that area, leaving 1% to lakes and rivers." PS: land area would need to be updated to 28% as well of course. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I can hear you allready say that it is not mentioned in the body (other than mentioned unclear in a reference footnote, see my recent clarification edit). Besides there is also the 75% number of water (incl. ice) cover of Earth. So it indeed might be less confusing for the lead to use the widely used 71%. But even if so the text has to make it clearer that the 71% is the ocean cover. So my (hopefully) final proposal:"While large amounts of water can be found throughout the Solar System, only Earth sustains liquid surface water. About 71% of Earth's surface is made up of the ocean, dwarfing Earth's polar ice, lakes and rivers." (also integrating the sentence about polar ice) Nsae Comp (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I take it that we have moved on to the other paras, that I can move this into the lead and close thise para? Nsae Comp (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nsae Comp (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, but we now have more about water in the solar system than is found in the "Hydrosphere" section in the body, which also doesn't talk about "liquid water". I think that we need to row back a little on that. Perhaps instead of " While large amounts of water can be found throughout the Solar System, only Earth sustains liquid surface water.", we can base it on the text from the body "The abundance of water on Earth's surface is a unique feature that distinguishes it from other planets in the Solar System." as "Other bodies in the solar system have water, but Earth uniquely has liquid water on its surface" or something similar, although we would still need to add something to the "Hydrosphere" section to mention "liquid water" if we want it to appear in the lede. Mikenorton (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With pleasure have I added that in the body. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Second paragraph
Current:

Proposal: Nsae Comp (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To furthermore explain the logic that apllied to the other paras: Regarding the atmosphere I took the previous composition sentance and changed it to give an idea how the proportions and main characteristic are. Then I continued on mentioning one of the most important constants, leading the reader to energy budget issues and therefore climate and its complexity and change with its important reference value of globale average temperature. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This seems to be the same paragraph as before.. It still does not comply with the WP:LEAD guideline, containing many statement and connections that are not found in the body of the text. As such, it does not meet the verifiability policy.
 * The sentence with the words "Earth energy budget" is incorrect. The budget is simply the top-of-atmosphere balance between incoming and outgoing radiation. It's not the energy flows within the climate system.
 * As the paragraph is far from meeting the LEAD guideline, I'm not commenting on grammar and prose yet. Femke (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * More on content: I do not think that the word shielding is clear here. If it refers to the magnetic field, that would already be covered by the sentence on solar winds in the previous paragraph (more clearly). Femke (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes its just a copy of the proposed and current paras to put them in comparison.
 * That about the energy budget can go if it doesnt work, the general idea, that the atmosphere is important for regulating Earths environment.
 * No, and I must admit I cut it too short here, "shilding" I meant the shielding that the atmosphere does: UV/ozone, meteorites, etc., it can deffinately use a better text/use.
 * Fascinating!! You are right I cant find solar irradiance in the body! Such a fundamental factor not mentioned... much to do here it seems. ...shocking... Nsae Comp (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Excited to see a new proposal with my feedback either incorporated or explained why not
 * I'm all up for adding solar irradiance to the body, but I'm firm in my belief it does not belong in the lead. It has a unit that people do not encounter everyday (especially now that light bulbs are measured in lumen rather than Watt), and it's a number people do not have a reference frame for. Even as a climate scientists who has read about climate science on other planets, I don't really have a good idea how this number varies. Femke (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well the addition to the body is done. But I cant follow you that kW are a foreign concept, dont you have energy bills? What do your bulbs say what energy they use? And hopefully people get into photovoltaic power and the energy of electric cars are meassured in kW. Etc. Saying kW is not known is quite outdated at least.Nsae Comp (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're probably right that there are more locations non-scientists would encounter kW. Still, the translation of everyday power into what it means on a planetary scale is non-trivial. Open to more opinions here :). Femke (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

So here my shorter update, taking the above arguments in and leaving out quite a bit... though I dont know if it is well enough structured and therefore might lack crucial cornerstones/issues: Nsae Comp (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Not quite there yet. Sorry for slow response. Taken up more than I can do with my limited energy.
 * You already describe (correctly there) what is causing seasons in the third paragraph.
 * I do not understand the sentence starting with 'has been hosting'. What does its refer to?
 * Why mention climate change both here and in the last paragraph. It fits better there, as climate change is one of humanity's impacts
 * Why topographic differences rather than elevation. Seems like an unnecessary complication
 * Try to avoid the present perfect continuous tense. It's very rare in this context (native speakers may be able to explain better)
 * This paragraph is far from ready for mainspace imo. Ask yourself what section of the body you are summarising. It used to be a summary of section 7, but now you're mixing in some of 9 too. But you're summarising 9 in the fourth paragraph too. And ozone depletion is not in the article (it probably should be, but needs to be added to the body first). Femke (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Dealt with the ozone hole (lol sry that had to be). I agree that there is some overlap but it is a crucial issue. Though I tried to minimize it now. I reworded. Last but not least I also took the ozone depletion from the lead, maindespite being in pain about that (I took it out because then you could mention many other things too, so I stuck with climate change as the main issue).
 * Nsae Comp (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here an even shorter/more concise version: Nsae Comp (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I know we have been excited to close the last para allready, but this one is still open. Can we finish this thread and find out if the above text is okay to be inserted? As I said I find it not redundant to have here also life and humans and their impact mentioned, since it is such a central issue. The only reason for me to maybe not have it, is to emphazies that climate impact and change is not the only critical environmental issue. But is it really that equal to other issues? Nsae Comp (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Still don't think it's an improvement. Apart from the redundancy, I see another problem. It's not only greenhouse gases (or energy in a different reading of the same sentence) that generates climate. It's a lot of things together. I don't understand "Life is significantly maintaining beneficial levels of atmospheric components". Nor "demanding climate change".
 * That said, I do think the current paragraph needs some copyediting from a native speaker. Femke (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well since I am running out of breath here, lets talk about it the other way around, looking what the current para is missing, on a statemnt by statement level. The statements that I am missing and see crucial also in that order are:
 * 1) "Water vapor is widely present and is extensively forming clouds."
 * 2) "Greenhouse gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) retain a part of the energy reaching Earth from the Sun."
 * 3) "Earth has an average surface temperature of 14 °C."
 * As I said I find also thw part about life and humans important, but since it is in the last para touched on, I can live it that no one cares about it as much as I do.
 * The last thing is the first sentence, which could be more nuanced and naturally I like my version better than the current. So it would be great to have that nuancing also:"Earth's surface is covered by its atmosphere, which consists mostly of nitrogen, partly of oxygen and in smaller amounts of other components."
 * So thats it for me if these three statements and maybe the first sentence can get in, then Ill leave this para and lead be and thank you all for the work. Nsae Comp (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Running out of breath.. Don't tell me about it. Bloody long covid
 * 1. Too tired to think of better prose here. The word extensively feels wrong. No text in the body (again) to fall back on. Water forming clouds doesn't need a cite, but the more subjective extensive may do.
 * 2. ✅
 * 3. To make this sentence accurate (Earth had an average surface temperature of 14 °C (MOS says no linking)), you'd have to add between 1950 and 1980, which is too much numerical information to make good prose. This fits better in the infobox, where it is already given. Femke (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

ad 2) thank you (even if water vapor made sense for me to make clear that CO2 isnt the only one, but its ok) ad 3) well ok, since that sentance works best if comined with humanity's impact, and with that gone it is indeed lost. ad 1) since this is important to describe Earth imho, I have added now a references in the text. The reference speaks of clouds "dominating" the view of Earth (67%). So, somewhat longer, but less unclear, I suggest:"Water vapor is widely present and is forming clouds which cover most of the planet." Nsae Comp (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I like that sentence. I've added it, and made space by copy-editing another sentence. Thank you a lot for your work :). I hope my insistence that we stick to guidelines meticulously wasn't too frustrating.
 * Grammar note: simple facts are described with the simple present tense, rather than the continuous tense: 'forms clouds' rather than 'is forming clouds' Femke (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much and thank you as well for sticking around and constructively work on this. I hope you will soon recover from your long-covid! Nsae Comp (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Third paragraph
Current:

Proposal: Nsae Comp (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The third para I rearranged to move orbital elements first and then continue with sizes and gravitational influence etc.. I must admit that this para is a bit numbers heavy, but do find it important to give an introduction to some cornerstone-numbers when a reader wants to get into Earth as a topic and to find their bearings in its planetary cosmos. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This repeats a lot of information from the infobox. As numbers in prose are always tricky in terms of prose quality, I would be against adding this duplicate information.
 * The proposal contradicts the body, implying certainty about the giant impact hypothesis. Not my expertise, so don't know what is true.
 * I think adding the eight light minutes distance is an improvement (I previously objected to adding the unit here, which would be more suitable for a text-book like article)
 * Don't mind the shufling of information
 * Prose tinkering needed after we agree on content. Femke (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Shufling done.
 * I understood now that "eight light minutes" is ok, but AU too much; which would be fine with me (possibly though being linked to AU).
 * Surface gravity I gree can be read from the infobox, especially since it is only in comparison with other planets, thus on their pages of worth mentioning in the lead. What I would keep is the distance numbers of the Sun, Moon and Earth's circumference, because they discribe important properties and give a sense of scale that Earth is and is in 40000km circumference => 380000km (1.2ls) => 8 light minutes, producing a nice transition from terrestrial scales to interplanetary scales by transitioning terrestrial km distance to lightseconds. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. If you propose another version of the paragraph, one of us will tackle the prose quality. I wouldnt like to AU, as it may be a bit of an unexpected link (Wikipedia:EGG). Femke (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I have left out the values of Earth's gforce and astronomical unit and rearranged for logic reasons my proposed text quite a bit:
 * Nsae Comp (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edited proposal vs original:

What do you think of the above? I've not checked it against the body. I'm sure other people can improve the prose further.
 * I've dealt with WP:OVERLINKING
 * tried to reduce sentence complexity
 * Removed that the axis tilt of orbital plane causes day/night (it's of course Earth's rotation around itself). Femke (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I like it. My links to year and day were because they are such crucial but also complex concepts, but its ok since rotation and orbit are linked (similarly with day/night). But I realized just now that I forgot yesterday to add the part about the Moon's distance to complete the little distance/size overview with the distance to the Sun and size of Earth & Moon given allready in the para. So here my little insert:"Earth is orbited by one permanent natural satellite, the Moon, which orbits Earth at 380.000 km (1.3 light seconds) and is roughly a quarter as wide as Earth."? Nsae Comp (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. That sentence has easy content, so it's okay if it's a bit longish. Ready for mainspace imo, where others can further improve wording. Femke (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nsae Comp (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph
Current:

Proposal:

Last but not least the fourth para: well I tried here to structure it chronologically and focus on what life and humans mean when speaking about Earth as a geological issue. Here I disarmed some sentences about extinction, since they sounded like previous editory having thrown arguments at each other about climate change (e.g. 99% all life allready extinct; I tried to focus that statement on its message of life being old and diverse. From fractions and spread of diversity I continued to humans as one tiny frction of Earth's life's diversity but also their impact on Earth and its life. Trying to make humans and their impact less sound detached from Earth as a topic and less about the humans (e.g. focusing on "degrading Earth" instead of impact of humans being about their survival; in the context of the article Earth at least. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced by most of these proposed changes. Maybe best to continue from the old version and make some minor tweaks
 * I like the explanation of how we know when Earth was formed
 * I think the sentence about earlier life can indeed be omitted (even though it's really cool)
 * I think the 99% was better, I don't see the connection with climate change. Mere is a subjective term, which should rarely be used on Wikipedia.
 * The Anthropocene is still not formally accepted as an epoch, I don't think you can say it like this. (and it's not in the body)
 * I think the statements about humans can be a bit stronger, but feel the wording may be too strong to completely comply with Neutral point of view. I think the orbits is too small an issue for the lede, and probably unclear for the average reader.
 * Femke (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Working from the current text I have implemented your comments and inserted the things that I see mostly missing. First the emergence of the ocean needs to be mentioned. Secondly I agree and argue even further that most of the sentences about life can be skiped. But since I dont care about para length only about structure and giving a good overview for orientation, so I dont care if they stay. For me it was important to give a chronological Earth and not life focused narrative, therefore I used that now to introduce humans to the text. Bigest problem I have are the 99%, this is a redundant argument that is imho only used by climate change deniars, and it does not give a good feeling of evolution's scale, it merely says how short human life is. Last but not least I took parts of my last sentences, because they are in my opinion stronger than the current and as little subjective as possible. For me terms like impact, exploit, (un-) sustainable, degrading, people's lifes, endangering and extiction have to be there to describe properly the dimensions of the issue. Particularly the reference to impact on human and other life was too small imho. E.g. I refrained from inserting links to climate change under "climate" and "ecosystems", but the three about life need to point towards their articles (though maybe there is a better article to link to for "people"). I did also reword instead of surface and hydrology I wrote soils and waters to a simpler language and sticking with main enviornments (omiting in pain the orbit).
 * Nsae Comp (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The term I have the most difficulty with is degrading, which is typically used for human's impacts on soil (as a noun rather than a verb), but not climate or ecosystems. Via Google I find two definitions of degrade:
 * "treat or regard (someone) with contempt or disrespect"
 * "break down or deteriorate chemically"
 * I think exploit is fine. But, we're not exploiting the climate, we're exploiting fossil fuel that impact the climate, so the language is off. Endangering other life and causing widespread extinction feels redundant to me. Maybe just go with the second?
 * I hope there will me more input from other editors here. Maybe somebody else wants to have a shot at proposing a compromise
 * P.S. you should care about paragraph length if you want people to read your overview and structure. Easy text has between 50-100 words. I've found between 100-150 words per paragraph a good compromise for Wikipedia articles. Your 268 word explanation above was difficult to parse for me. Femke (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks and yes please more input by others!
 * I crinch taking endangering out, but true it is a bit redundant with the extinction part. Furthermore I dont need to stick with "degrading" and you made me realize the combination of exploit and unsustainable is odd, since exploitation is kind of per definition never really sustainable in a finite world if it it refers mainly to natural resources, maybe exploitation is therefore more about it possibly being escalating or depleting, or something like that. I thought of writing "Driven by exploitation today humanity's impact on Earth's climate, soils, waters and ecosystem has become unsustainable," but that didnt sound neutral anymore and is a bit too much of a detail for the lead of Earth; except if you deem that this is warrented, then I am glad if it finds its way in. But here my updated version (without exploitation and the other discussed issues):
 * ad P.S.: sorry for being inprecise; well I didnt mean its unimportant, but for me finding shorter sentences after adding content is the way to go, instead of not adding something because I havent come up with a shorter text. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This thread has been up now for two weeks and I have been on this for three, no more people are joining in and the ones who did are also less active. So I would suggest to put the last proposal of para two and four in and let the direct editing have a go from here? Then we coukd close this. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Humans emerged 300.000 years ago on Earth, having today a population of 8 billion. It's almost 8 billion. Sentence isn't great, try "Humans emerged 300,000 years ago, and have reached a population of almost 8 billion today". (note that English switches commas and decimal point in numbers compared to many other European languages)
 * @Clayoquot & @Mikenorton: more comments? Femke (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Humans emerged 300,000 years ago, and have reached a population of almost 8 billion today" is much clearer. Good point about commas and decimal points. In English, 300.000 = 300. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed that sentence, which looks good and incorporated another couple of changes. Firstly, I've reworded the 2nd sentence as I think that "developed" is better for the appearance of life than "formed", Secondly, I've cut down on the number of "Humans" in the 4th sentence. Mikenorton (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And I've tweaked the 2nd sentence again. Mikenorton (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed that sentence, which looks good and incorporated another couple of changes. Firstly, I've reworded the 2nd sentence as I think that "developed" is better for the appearance of life than "formed", Secondly, I've cut down on the number of "Humans" in the 4th sentence. Mikenorton (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And I've tweaked the 2nd sentence again. Mikenorton (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Great work! Thank you for respomding and your constructive input! ♡ ... I am fine with this para as it stands now! Thank you again for having reached this point together constructively. Feel free to add it. If this para runs silent in the next days I would add it then. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Clayoquot & @Femke - Are we agreed that the text that I proposed is ready for adding?. Mikenorton (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * yes :) Femke (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Mikenorton (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your great work on this! Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 16:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

✅, the discussion that has been going on, has been addressed. Nsae Comp (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Orbit of Earth image
I cannot found a single decent GIF of the orbit of Earth, except this. Does anyone have a better image/GIF? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we change "life" to "indigenous life" in the intro section?
It's a weird technicality but trace amounts of introduced microscopic life do exist on other planets, having been brought along on space probes due to the practical impossibility of 100% sterilizing them. It's not a large enough amount to matter in any significant way but it does mean that the statement "only planet known to harbor life" is technically incorrect. SpudNutimus (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. I notice that we don't repeat this statement in the body of the article with a WP:reliable source. Do you have a reliable source that we can add with either statement? I'll have a look what my books about Earth say on the matter. I think the word harbor is sufficiently vague that having a few microbes on a rock doesn't really count as harboring... Femke (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I found this recent source that says Earth is the only planet to harbor life: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab3a49/meta. That would at least make the statement a bit less strong, and more likely to be true. Do you have a source that says indigenous life. If we're being "technically correct", it's not quite certain that life on Earth is indigenous, right? If I'm not mistaken, introduction of life via a comet is still a plausible hypothesis for how life arrived on Earth. Femke (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Photographic representation of earth


The current image used to represent earth is The Blue Marble, and rightly so. However, the main version used is one scanned by NASA in 1972 which, as a result of poor processing, has inaccurate colors and does not do the Earth justice.

At the end of most film magazines used on the Apollo missions, there is a photograph of a color calibration chart. By calibrating the colors in The Blue Marble to match the colors on the chart one can better approximate what the astronauts actually saw when they took the picture. It is by this process that of the photograph came to be produced. This new version of The Blue Marble was taken and re-cropped from the original AS17-148-22727 photograph, scanned by NASA's Johnson Space Center.

My proposal is that we let go of our personal attachments to the original purple earth, and update the official photographic representation of earth to something more accurate to real-life. Aaron1a12 (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I tend to the updated one. Its a nice compromise with having an old image. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have to add something: shouldnt the picture be rotated to have north down, as originally taken? Nsae Comp (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the image of Earth in the Infobox should have North Africa and Arabia at the top and Antarctica at the bottom. This article is about Earth, not about the Apollo photos or Apollo astronauts travelling upside down (relative to Earth's geographic poles). The frame of reference should not be the "up" direction of an Apollo astronaut, which is opposite of convention. The fact that the Apollo astronauts' photo is upside-down relative to conventional depictions of the Earth is an obstacle to the general reader's understanding of Earth. The general reader of Wikipedia will be unnecessarily confused by Antarctica at the top of the image and North Africa and Arabia at the bottom of the image. An analogy: the article on gravity would not be improved by a photo of books on a bookshelf, taken by a photographer hanging upside-down from a ceiling. The conventional viewpoint is that shelves stop objects falling downwards, they do not usually stop objects floating upwards. Prioritising the photographer's unusual viewpoint over the conventional viewpoint could give the misleading impression that the books float in mid air and the shelf prevents books floating further upwards, when the reality is that the books will not float upwards and the bookshelf is actually preventing the books falling downwards. GeoWriter (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with GeoWriter. It's not that important that we display what the Apollo crew saw. We want an immediately clear image of Earth. Femke (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With a black background surrounded by Wikipedia's white, the new image is less pleasing to my eyes as well.. Femke (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand that we shouldn't confuse the average reader and to that goal, it does become obvious that the conventional orientation of Earth should be used (north equals up.) Also, since the article is about Earth, and not The Blue Marble, it is essential that we illustrate Earth as close to real-life as possible. I can't count the many times flat-earthers have confronted me online about how "NASA can't settle on its CGI earth look" or "why do the ISS photos not match." Using better imaging technology, NASA/JSC/ASU rescanned this photograph about 40 years after 1972, and I see no reason to still use the badly processed original. Aaron1a12 (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, refreshing and eyes opening like Wikipedia should. Its not a map afterall. Nsae Comp (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Portraits nicely that Earth is not bound to human convention and is more than what we want it to be. Beautyful. I find it good because it is a portrait, I am not asking for rotating all images of Earth like that, but as a portrait as a whole (e.g. not as a map) it does not need to fulfill a use like quick orientation or not to be distracting from something conveyed by a depiction of Earth e.g. in infrared or any other analysis of Earth. The example of shelfs and books well, a shelf works by standing by gravity, but Earth does not care how we orient it, in fact there is no difference, because the reference frame is missing like in the shelf example, in that picture you have also a floor and ceiling, thats something that is missing here so you can indeed rotate it without distroying its correctness. Its like having a picture without reference frame of a shelf that you can turn on its head and is built to still be useable. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Your example of the shelf is like having a picture of Earth and the Moon and turning only Earth on its head, then we most certainly have a problem, because then the reference frame is there. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I do like the idea of breaking with preconceived notions of what Earth should look like, and it's certainly refreshing. In space, there is no up, and making north up is just a preference mostly decided by Northern European explorers. I'm split. Aaron1a12 (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I prefer conventional orientation. If we're to do otherwise, having Antarctica at the top would be just as arbitrary. The astronauts would see Earth as lying on its side, if they were sitting/lying parallel to the moon's orbital plane. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm okay with the new, lighter image, as well. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Too bad, it was really refreshing and proper. Maybe one day people will see Earth in any orientation from space as they want. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Suggesting a new orientation isn't advocating for something that's "proper", as that word signifies a conventional orientation or attitude. "Refreshing" might not be the word people would use, if they are merely confused by a new orientation, when they're looking for clarity, which is likely when they're consulting an encyclopedia. We are limited in how many images we can display here; and, as I said, an upside-down image isn't showing us what the astronauts saw. It's just as arbitrary as the usual "right"-side-up. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I love it! Also, this version is much more accurate and matches many footages of rocket launches, as these cameras are very standard and not specialized to a certain wavelength. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Age of the earth
@: I am making this talk page discussion because of your changes to the earth's age and your changes to. Wikipedia is not faith-based. If it were, we'd need settle the differences between many religions and beliefs of the world. Not all religions agree that the earth was created 6,000 years ago.--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 02:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Orbital characteristics
The mean anomaly at Epoch J2000 should read 357.517 instead of 358.617 degrees. It is the difference between the mean longitude 100.46435 and the longitude of perihelion 102.94719 (+360 degrees) given by ref [5] the earth's fact sheet by NASA https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html John Ripfield (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I also note that the time of perihelion is placed in 2022, while the infobox section is said to be relative to J2000. Hopefully someone more experienced in astronomy can take a look; do you have any thoughts? Ovinus (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox planet does not support tropical year
I have reverted these edits by Nsae Comp in part because they introduced a number, 365.2421897, that is not in the cited source, and then converted that to some kind of year. It is not clear that astronomers normally make such a conversion.

Also it claims this number is the "synodic period". I copy a definition of synodic period from page 656 (in the glossary) of Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac 3rd ed., edited by Urban and Seidelmann and published by University Science Books in 2013. "synodic period: the mean interval of time between successive conjunctions of a pair of planets, as observed from the Sun; or the mean interval between successive conjunctions of a satelllite with the Sun, as observed from the satellite's primary." Since the only celestial bodies being discussed are the Earth and the Sun, and the definition of synodic period requires three celestial bodies, the definition cannot apply. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Well as I wrote in the edit comment, the problem is with the infobox template, which does not know a category for tropical year. So I was merely trying to add tropical year with the help of the "synodic year" category of the infobox template. I agree that all definitions of synodic "year" are like the one cited above. But since synodic, as in synodic rotation does indeed just mean the solar day it is not absurd to also understand synodic in connection with "year" in the sense of the solar/tropical year. I have even seen the use "synodic year" for "tropical year", but since I am not being able to provide an in depth source I have to concede to the critique, that useing the "synodic_period" category of the infobox is misleading. Nsae Comp (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * With other words, if someone can find a way to have the tropical year in the infobox, that would be great, because it is absurd, that the infobox only features the sidereal year. Nsae Comp (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * PS: could you change the title of the talk-page chapter not with my user name? Maybe:"Infobox: tropical year?" Nsae Comp (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I took now the version from the testcase (Template:Infobox planet/testcases). PS: Maybe other elements from the testcase can be introduced as well? Nsae Comp (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose using the term synodic period with Earth. I oppose using any testcase templates in the article. I oppose adding any number to the article without a clear citation as to where the number comes from. I have reverted your change. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2022
The mass of the earth is in fact 5.964*10^(24)kg because the equation GMm/r^2; rearranged for M = Fr^2/Gm; 9.80665N*(6371km)^2/G*1kg = x is equal to 5.964*10^(24)kg I could be wrong and qalculate could have a bug but it's worth a try James12Harushi (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2022 (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. Dawnseeker2000  07:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your calculation is correct but it assumes a perfectly spherical Earth with uniform mass when in reality, the Earth is an oblate spheroid, slightly wider at the diameter than the poles and the density of the Earth is probably (not a geologist) non-uniform. The source that is cited for the Earth's mass would've used a more advanced method for calculating the mass resulting in it being more accurate. QuinticFormula 🏳️‍🌈  (talk)  11:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Im new here
who were the group of people(s) that created the article on earth?--Footballandgames (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! The article has been written by a large group of editors. You can find a pie chart (and more info) here. You can also look in the history of the article (next to the edit button), but that will be a bit unwieldy for a big article such as this. Femke (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks Footballandgames (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Formation.
Wording "radius equal to the Sunand Earth" is ambiguous. 1.46.139.245 (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reporting this. I have changed the caption text for this image. GeoWriter (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Add archive links to non-dead refs
User:Dhtwiki reverted my IABot edits, saying "Adds to clutter, download and setup times; when links are live accomplishes nothing; when links are dead, it's a likely time to reevaluate or update references; linkrot policy doesn't support mass addition of these archive links." I don't really agree that it is just clutter, when a lot of the links are archived for the first time and it doesn't really hurt to have these links in. What do you guys think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That revert seems a rather single-minded opinion that prevents prolonged verifiability. I don't see how Dhtwiki can in good conscience revert a standard practice on WP like that—If they have an issue with it, bring it up in a community wide discussion. Until then, it is not an improvement to revert such an edit.  Aza24  (talk)   02:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * How does it prevent prolonged verifiability? And how is it standard practice? IABot itself, when running by itself, only adds links when they're dead? There are a number of editors who think running this program, without any further checking or curation of the pages affected, think they're helping; but no one can offer much besides vague assertions that it somehow improves things. How exactly? The archive links are there to be linked to if the original dies; setting the archive links doesn't cause that to happen. I think it's a waste of time and resources, and when it adds tens of kilobytes to an article and many extra links is detrimental. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with some of the point, but I disagree with your premise. Yes, the default option of IABot is to add dead links only, but there's also a checkbox that allows you to add archive to all the links. A lot of the links are archived for the first time this way, so waiting until the links are dead before using IABot is not a great idea as we may lose the source forever and unable to verify the information. If you argue that it would clutter up the wikitext, then sorry, but our standard referencing practice has already make the wikitext a lot harder to read already. Stripping archive links doesn't help much with that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't have an opinion here, but all links added to Wikipedia are automatically archived if I'm not mistaken. So these archive links can be added at a later point. Femke (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Right. See WP:PLRT, which is a section of Link rot: "Links added by editors to the English Wikipedia mainspace are automatically saved to Wayback Machine within about 24 hours (nb. in practice not every link is getting saved for various reasons)." Adding the archive links isn't needed to ensure that the archives are created. Note the quoted expception ("in practice not every link is getting saved for various reasons"); but it isn't necessarily so that adding links to archive snapshots overcomes that. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I changed my mind. I won't check the box when I archive the page links again, unless if the bot doesn't archive certain essential links for whatever the reason. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"Colonization of Earth" listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Colonization of Earth and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 13:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Earth
Earth is only planet that has life in it. it's the third planet from the sun. It is also called as Blue planet thus it contains 71% water and only 29% of land mass. 122.174.157.215 (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello. Is this a suggestion to change the wording of the article? Femke (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment A better wording would be: Earth is the only planet in the observable universe known to possess life. It's the third planet from the Sun. It is also called the Blue Marble since it contains 70.8% water and only 29.2% dry land. 2001:8003:9008:1301:21D0:D945:43A0:166E (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2022 - Qualify statement about magnetic dipole decrease of 6%/century to avoid alarm
Change the line ending in: "at epoch 2000, decreasing nearly 6% per century. " to instead end in: "at epoch 2000, decreasing nearly 6% per century over the last (although it still remains stronger than its long time average). "

Purpose: When I read the line as it is stated now, I was immediately concerned for the Earth (and humanity) since I lacked perspective on how current values relate to historical ones, and how these values were expected to fluctuate over time. Reading the cited article I learned that this immediate alarm was unfounded, and that in fact we're still above the long time average value. CommanderPho (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'm unsure whether or not this edit should be included but I don't know any policy that forbids it and we should be bold. I omitted "the last" because it isn't good for grammar. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Surface
Before copyediting the new additions, I'm wondering where we can find adequate sourcing. The content is quite straightforward (except the one claim I tagged), so we don't need top-tier sources per se, but we can do better than the National Geographic source for children. Furthermore, the placement of the sources does not make clear where what information is found: the last source of the paragraph does not talk about plains, for instance. Femke (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to slowly catch up with the edits. @Nsae Comp, none of the three sources in the water world/ocean world sentence are high-quality reliable sources. Two are lay sources, and the third is a primary source. I don't see the sources making this distinction between water world and ocean world anyway. Only the kids source talks about water-world (with hyphen..) describing current earth.
 * Other sourcing is confusing too. Where did you find information about those landmasses? Why are there two identical mid-sentence sources with a quote about the Olympic flag? Mid-sentence sources make text less readable. Retrieved in 2012, did you copy this from another Wikipedia article (if so, see WP:CWW). Femke (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Could you please fix the WP:overcitation issue with the water world/ocean world sentence. None of the seven cites are high quality reliable sources. I've not looked at all sources, but the distinction between water world and ocean world you try to make is not present in sources sampled. Femke (alt) (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I reduced refs and entered one which does discuss all the papers of the previous sources. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Overcitation reduced to five sources, three of which are of high enough quality. The two best sources contradict each other, which is difficult to work with..
 * Voosen: water world is completely submerged
 * Lunine: water world is a term only applicable to exoplanets. Ocean world does not need to be completely submerged.
 * Because Voosen doesn't say the Earth is not an ocean world, I think we could say something like:
 * This makes Earth an ocean world. In its early history, Earth may even have been completely submerged. The contradicting definitions of water world are then completely omitted, as it's not that important. We'd focus on the content, rather than definitions. What do you think>? Femke (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess thats a compromise. Though I must say that I saw the points you have mentioned and have realized the conflict between the terms and their different uses, but thats exactly why I couldnt omit any one of the two, for me it was more correct to use both words and leave it to the future scientists to provide more established and pronounced definitions. But I guess ocean world would be the one I would go for if I would have to choose one. Water world is the more ambivalent one, because it seems sometimes it is used for planets with a vibrant hydrosphere and sometimes it is trying to invoke the idea of the movie Waterworld. I personally understood water world more like the sources of less quality, as a vibrant hydrosphere world, but none of the qualified source give a distinction that would clarify the understandings and scenarios behind the terms. So as I said for me it was just a not finished issue, so mentioning both terms was the more complete picture. But okay this is not the article to hint towards definition issues. PS: thank you for the calm talk and compromise. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

prebiotic second atmosphere
I have no idea what that would be, with a PhD in climate science. This really needs to be written for a waaaay broader audience. You may be interested in WP:ONEDOWN. Femke (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Nsae Comp: I've removed the jargon. You may be interested in WP:ACCIM#5: use the upright parameter rather than fixed pixel width to ensure user's preferences about image size are honoured. Femke (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Nsae Comp (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Images

 * @Nsae Comp: You're still going a bit too fast for me to keep up. If you make large-scale changes to a featured article, it's often wise to leave a note on the talk page detailing the changes to want to make and why. For instance, you've been increasing the difficulty of the images, a move I disagree with. Femke (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * About halfway through images now. Trying to preserve what you did when possible by changing other parts of the article. Please remember to take into account WP:ACCIM: don't WP:SANDWICH images (if you're on a small screen, you may need to zoom out to see if you're introducing problems), and give the size of the image using the uprigth parameter, rather than fixed pixel sizes. Femke (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree on some points, but thank you. I am good now, lots of time went into going through the commons. Nsae Comp (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * As somebody who spend loads of time finding images for this article, I sympathise. Please do keep in mind the broad audience for an article like this. Femke (alt) (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Caption Archean artist impression
Could you make the caption less technical? I have no idea what round stromatolites are, where they are on the picture, or where you got that information (it's not in the image description I don't think). It seems like the Moon is closer to Earth at that point in time, maybe we can find a source for that + focus caption on that? Femke (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I didnt add that image.Nsae Comp (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, @CactiStaccingCrane seems to have added this one in this edit. I prefer the simpler image that was there before (higher quality). CSC, could you have another look at it? Femke (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Feel free to swap the image. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I didnt take the picture out, since I didnt find the other image more illustrating. So I did add a text to amplify what I think an image here can do to elaborate the chapter and the time described. Nsae Comp (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The new caption is a bit too long (MOS:CAPSUCCINCT advises typically no more than 3 lines, we're at 8). microbialites is a word less than 1% of our readers will recognize (I certainly don't), and eon / Archean are already quite difficult to start with. Femke (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

As usual I dont agree with thinking of the reader as incapable tp cope with new terms, afterall thats the great thing about hyperlinks. But ok the text is long. Nsae Comp (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The thing is, most people don't click more than one hyperlink. So it's really a last resort solution to writing articles for the appropriate audience. I left most technical terms in, especially those who can be semi-understood from context Femke (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I preferred the image that was in this section before. I'm not sure that the current image is that great at illustrating the Archaean, let alone geological history as a whole. The previous image at least showed some of the evidence relating to the formation and destruction of a supercontinent. We could also add that the rocks have most recently been uplifted during part of the Alpine orogeny. Mikenorton (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I read this discussion as a rough consensus to include the old image. Current image is a bit fuzzy, the caption is too long, too difficult and supported by sources given. Femke (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Well the image is now in the origin of life sub-chapter therefore now even less in conflict with an image about the geological evidence of the Archaen. PS: That said, I would understand the sub-chapter title Geological history a bit of a misfit anyway since all chapters under Chronology deal with geological history. Maybe a better title is needed? Maybe something like Surface development? That would give also a rough nerrative Formation > Surface development > Life. Nsae Comp (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving the discussion (too much on my plate). @Devonian Wombat is familiar with the FA criteria as well, and in contrast with me, does know about geology. Always difficult to rewrite text more simply if you have limited subject knowledge. Femke (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to point out that I'm not any sort of geology expert, in fact I only know as much as the average person about it. However, my two cents would be that "Surface development" might not be the best section title, since the section in question also talks about Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field. Perhaps "Further geological development" might work? It's a tad clunky, but it solves the issue that Nsae Comp pointed out. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Surface development" would not be an improvement in my view (as a geologist). I'm also unimpressed with the image added - the orange dot. If we want a single image to illustrate the geological history of Earth, then I would strongly prefer one that shows actual geology, rather than yet another artist's impression. Mikenorton (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

How about just calling the chapter "Post formation" or "After formation", that would then also be more inclusive for the issue of atmosphere (and the corresponding orange dot image)? Since the sub-chapter title is questioned Ill add "After formation" for now, until someone else comes up with something better. Nsae Comp (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Article structure logic
Hi everyone,

I reordered the sub-chapters of "physical characteristics" to go from outer to inner layers and not from shape to inner structure and then back to tectonics and surface. That said I have been uncomfortable with the chapters main title, because unlike in articles of other planets topics like atmosphere and hydrosphere are here seperate and not part of the "Physical characteristics" chapter. I agree on having these chapters in the case of Earth seperate, since it has such a lifely atmosphere/hydrosphere producing a literally organic surface. So for me the article has three physical chapters organic composition/dynamics, orbital composition/dynamics and last but not least morphologic composition/dynamics. The latter is the chapter that I have an issue with I guess. In order to draw an illustrative line between why the surface is discussed seperatly geologically in the "physical characteristics" chapter and as part of the hydro/atmo/organic conditions, and why they are not merged I would suggest calling the chapter "Physical characteristics" something else, maybe "Morphologic characteristics" or just Composition, Configuartion, "Geologic characteristics", ?? ? Nsae Comp (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Changed the chapter title from "Physical characteristics" to "Geophysical characteristics" to differentiate the chapter to other chapters such as atmosphere, as discussed above. Nsae Comp (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2022
please let me edit 198.236.196.130 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Bad grammar in Size and Shape subsection
I think I've noticed a mistake in the prose:

Earth's surface is farthest out from Earth's center of mass because and at the equatorial bulge, making the summit of the Chimborazo volcano in Ecuador (6,384.4 km or 3,967.1 mi) the farthest point.

should be

Earth's surface is farthest out from Earth's center of mass at its equatorial bulge, making the summit of the Chimborazo volcano in Ecuador (6,384.4 km or 3,967.1 mi) the farthest point.

Hopefully someone can fix this! Daraghmeehan (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Madeline (part of me ) 19:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Earth's illumination at each of equinoxes and solstices
Hello guys I have a question could we or I add this image of the Earth's illumination at each of the equinoxes and solstices in the orbit and rotation section of Earth's article? I'll just trim down the description a bit if we do add it. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fantastic image that illustrates a confusing concept very well! I think you should definitely add it to the "Axial tilt and seasons" section. For a description, I would suggest: "The Earth viewed from geostationary orbit shows seasonal changes in illumination. These images were captured at the same time of day on the March equinox (upper left), June solstice (upper right), September equinox (lower left), and December solstice (lower right). Earth's north pole is oriented up, with Australia visible in the Southern Hemisphere." A2soup (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I know I'm replying three days later but thanks for the feedback and for coming up with a description for the image. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Ethemology
this section is a mess. someone knowledgeable should rewrite this. suggest to erase the current version Theking2 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Earth Listed As “Fourth Largest Solar System Planetary Object”
Isn’t the Earth the 5th largest planetary object? Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Earth 76.78.242.147 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. And that's certainly what List of Solar System objects by size shows. I'll fix it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Typo in Life on Earth section
Could someone with sufficient worldly power correct the following minor mistake:

The different biomes develope(d) at distinct elevations or water depths

Thanks 78.151.206.54 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Corrected - thanks for pointing that out. Mikenorton (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ooh, and here's another in Human Geography:
 * Earth has been the claim of extensive human sede(n)tary, extractive and political activity 78.151.206.54 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And also: international governance having provided legal regimes extraterritorially, extanding human governance
 * Could be expanding or extending, take your pick 78.151.206.54 (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed "extanding", but I'm wondering about that whole previous sentence. "claim" reads oddly to me and I'm not sure what sedentary activity would mean in this context. Mikenorton (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, perhaps subject rather than claim, and maybe settlement, extraction and political activity? Or just remove extractive entirely and leave that point for the following subsection, given that the rest of the paragraph discusses political divisions and governance. 78.151.206.54 (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed it as you've suggested. You may be right in your second point, but I'm leaving it for now, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2023
Rectify a spelling error in the caption of the cover image by changing "Antartica" to "Antarctica" AllegedlyEric (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Excluding exoplanets?
...should probably say...

...right? Gadg8eer (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reporting this. I changed the article's text to "Earth is the only planet confirmed to sustain liquid surface water". I did not add "in the Solar System and beyond" because "the only planet" seems to cover "the Solar System and beyond" making it superfluous. GeoWriter (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

New Study (6/14/2023): Earth Formed In Only 3 Million Years - Worth Adding or Not?
Original Edit Added by User:Drbogdan => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earth&diff=prev&oldid=1160575411

Original Edit Reverted by User:Velella => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earth&diff=next&oldid=1160575411

According to a recent study - reported (6/14/2023) in the peer-reviewed journal Nature - the Planet Earth may have been formed in only 3 million years instead of the 10-100 million years thought earlier.

QUESTION: Should this new study (6/14/2023) be included in the main Earth article - or Not?

Comments Welcome !!

In any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! Drbogdan (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Drbogdan (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * No, too early to judge whether this study will gain wide acceptance. Same as for almost all newly published work. Mikenorton (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * A quick read of the paper suggests that the Washington Post has got its knickers in a twist, but no; their use of English is a little weird but they do accurately summarise the paper. The Nature paper suggests that the evidence is the earth formed very quickly and within 3 million years after the Solar system was formed. This would make it much older than believed at present. An age of creation of only 3 million years ago is more akin to young creationist thinking and would neither allow time for life to form and differentiate nor for the decay of radio-isotopes which give us relatively accurate ages of many rock strata - but that is absolutely not what the paper says. I would wait to see the reaction of cosmologists to the paper and it may well be worth adding then with suitable caveats that this research suggests an older age of formation, not a younger one.  Velella  Velella Talk  18:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * In fairness to, I misread the original addition to the article, so apologies for what turns out to have been something of a knee jerk reaction. But...... if I could read it the wrong way, then I guess others could too. I live in a house built on 750 million year old rocks and the prospect of them not even existing shook me to my literal foundations. So, perhaps with clearer phrasing, and as noted above, it probably will have a place in the article. (Time to go back to my plants I suspect!)  Velella  Velella Talk  18:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

(and others) - FWIW - Thank You for your comments - yes - I understood the new article(s) to refer to the age of the Earth as the usual 4.54 bya, and the formation of Earth as taking the first 3 million years of this overall 4.54 bya age (and not at all as an overall age of the Earth as 3 mya as perhaps some may understand) - seems earlier studies estimated this formation time of planet Earth to be as long as 10-100 million years - the new studies  seem to suggest the much shorter formation time of 3 million years instead - hope this clarifies the edit text in question, and informs the current discussion a bit better - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"Érete" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%89rete&redirect=no Érete] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris talk! 23:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"'Rrta" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%27Rrta&redirect=no 'Rrta] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris talk! 23:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2023
The "43" in the following text should be changed to half that, "21.5", a necessary change that is evident from the Earth Physical Characteristics near the top of the page. Measurements made to the center of mass are radiuses, not diameters.

Due to Earth's rotation it has the shape of an ellipsoid, bulging at its Equator, reaching 43 km further out from its center of mass than at its poles. RMMentock (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The source specifically mentions the diameter, and while I think it'd be reasonable to halve it when referring to radius, I've instead just gone for rewording the sentence to keep the 43 km, but clarify that it's in reference to the diameter. Closing this because I think this solves the issue, reopen if you have any objections. Thanks,  BelowTheSun </b> (T•C) 20:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

First sentence
Hi there currently the first sentence says "to harbor life." While I am technically fine with the reintroduced shorter and simpler phrasing, though I feel urged to defend the previous wording of "where life developed and found habitability.".

I quite strongly feel it gives a better understanding of what a planet and Earth in this case is for life, "harbour" is almost a text filler in comparison. Afterall the Moon has for some days allready "harboured" life, even space does. But develop and being habitable is a deeply planetary characteristic.

A compromise would be to reduce linking and remove the link to life. But even that doesnt feel being too much. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I second this desire to reduce linking! HuffGLaDTem (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Change the "Earth Night" image
The picture that depicts the Earth's surface at night has a very low quality. It'd be better if the image used was Earth's City Lights by DMSP. Inter-rede (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Earth." listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earth.&redirect=no Earth.] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"Local Planet" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Local_Planet&redirect=no Local Planet] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023
The Earth is flat. 2600:1700:62B3:8820:A104:D4A:3D2C:1DE0 (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Moons of Io (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2023
Earth is not the only water world, there is also titan, mars, and others but I need elaboration on whether it's water or ice and if so, that narrows it down. AkshathJ (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2023 (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. Cannolis (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Changing Image
Change the image. That is the remastered version of the original one. Which is better? #bodyContent aFlag Creator { background-color: #ffa500; color: #ggggggg; font-weight: monoscope; } 15:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The remastered version is better and should be used. The classic variant is poorly calibrated and processed by comparison. Both are derived from scans of the original film negatives, so it cannot be argued that the remastered version is any less "real". Harbingerdawn (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023
Change:

“Through tidal locking, the Moon always faces Earth with the same side, which causes tides, stabilizes Earth's axis, and gradually slows its rotation.”

To:

“The Moon’s gravity causes tides on Earth, which gradually slow its rotation. It also helps stabilize Earth's axis. As a result of tidal locking, the same side of the Moon always faces Earth.”

[The moon would still cause the tides whether it were locked or not!] The Old Font (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now: I agree that the phrasing is ambiguous, but I think the proposed wording is still ambiguous/clunky. Which body is the it in "its rotation"? Also, tidal locking can happen regardless of ocean tides, yes? Being generous, I would interpret the present sentence to mean "through the process of tidal locking, this list of things happen ." Not opposed to changing it, just not sure about this proposed alternative. Brevity is to be encouraged in an article's lead.  The Savage  Norwegian  18:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It’s not a question of ambiguous phrasing. The existing sentence pretty unambiguously states as fact something that is patently totally incorrect. This is inexcusable in the lead section of an article as important as ‘Earth’. However one interprets ‘it’ (and it could only be the earth – the moon’s relative rotation having already slowed to a standstill), none of the listed effects is due to tidal locking. The Old Font (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – changed to The Moon’s gravity helps stabilize Earth's axis, and also causes tides which gradually slow Earth's rotation. As a result of tidal locking, the same side of the Moon always faces Earth. Ocean tides are in fact by far the main contributor to the tidal locking seen in the Earth-Moon system, so this phrasing is fine. Tollens (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Earthrise over Compton crater -LRO full res - edit1.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 1, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-01-01. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced statements
A bunch of the sentences and statements in the article are unsourced, and considering this is an FA I feel like it has to be dealt with at some point. Blue Jay (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Considering that the article has about 600 sentences, you might want to be a little more specific... Dhrm77 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"Home Planet" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Home_Planet&redirect=no Home Planet] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe) 00:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2024
The Earth Is Not Flat Kwispy8 (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2024 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead sucks
For me at least, the lead feels like a bunch of statistics and facts being toss into a bowl of salad. There's no overarching theme or a sense of causality that the reader can follow through. A better lead should be much shorter and be more selective. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * MOS:LEAD suggests that it should be no longer than four paragraphs for longer articles and typically three to four. It also has to summarise the contents of the article, so being shorter and more selective is difficult. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead feels so long and a sore to read. To an another example, Britannica's article about the Earth has a lead that's longer than ours but it is much more pleasant to read because the information is not as disjointed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's my proposed outline for the new lead, with each bullet point is a paragraph not longer than 125 words as a rule of thumb:
 * General info, Earth's surface, water and atmosphere
 * Earth's cycles, inner structure and magnetic field
 * Earth's orbital, rotational and astronomical properties
 * Earth's history (with less focus on humans/climate change and more towards other parts of history in general)
 * CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If you want to understand how the current lead was developed, see this lengthy discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the link. Unfortunately I really need to go to sleep now so see you in ~10 hours. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Should we follow the lead example at Mars? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Here's my proposed lead:
 * Earth is the third planet from the Sun and the only astronomical object known to harbor life. 70.8% of the Earth's surface is covered in liquid water and the remaining 29.2% is dry land. Most of the Earth's water is concentrated in a global ocean and ice sheets. Many parts of Earth's land is somewhat humid and covered by vegetation. With a mean radius of 6371.0 km, Earth is the largest, densest and most massive terrestrial planet in the Solar System. Earth has one large natural satellite: the Moon.
 * Earth's crust consists of slowly moving tectonic plates, which interact to produce mountain ranges, volcanoes, and earthquakes. Above the crust a dynamic atmosphere, mostly consisting of nitrogen and oxygen, protects the Earth from most meteoroids and ultraviolet light. Small concentration of water vapor, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases help to capture and maintain energy from the Sun's light. Below, the planet's liquid outer core generates a magnetosphere that deflects most of the destructive solar winds and cosmic radiation.
 * In terms of orbital motion, Earth rotates around its own axis in 23 hours and 56 minutes, complete one revolution around the Sun in 365.25 days, and has a significant axis of rotation of 23.4°. The Moon's significant mass help to stabilize the Earth's axis and causes tides. All of these factors, when combined, enabled Earth to sustain life, complex climate systems, biogeochemical cycles and produce seasonal and weather phenomena.
 * Like most bodies in the Solar System, the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago from gas in the early Solar System. During the first billion years of Earth's history, the ocean formed and then life developed within it. Life spread globally and altered Earth's atmosphere and surface, leading to the Great Oxidation Event two billion years ago and produced oxygen in the atmosphere. Humans emerged 300,000 years ago in Africa and have spread across every continent on Earth. Humanity increasingly has a substantial impact on Earth's climate and biosphere to the point of causing widespread extinctions and threatening their own livelihood.
 * - CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Mikenorton CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2024
Ok I want to change a mistake I saw about it saying that earth is the only planter with water on it because clearly it's not. 24.101.87.161 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead section says that it is the only astronomical object in the solar system to have "liquid surface water". Mikenorton (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2024
Edit: Change "This process maintains the current average surface temperature of 14.76°C" from 14.76°C to 15°C.

This temperature seems outdated, and I couldn't find a source for it. As well, it is inconsistent with other articles, ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature. 207.195.72.119 (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The source for this number is this article. --TheImaCow (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2024
I heard that a sidereal day instead of being 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds it's 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.09053 seconds (small change i know but will help most people getting information from wikipedia) Ertgiuhnoyo (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done This is covered in the rotation section. Jamedeus (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium
Please a) link 'aluminium' to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium and b) edit text from containing 'aluminum' [sic!] to 'aluminium' 98.128.249.183 (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mikenorton (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 02 April 2024
Hi, I suggest adding a wiki hyperlink to the notion "tidal interaction" in the subsection "Earth–Moon system". There is a wiki page about this phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force

Sorry this is my first time doing this kind of request. So, if I did something wrong, I'm sorry and please tell how I can do this better if you can. Have a nice day to you all :) Filuo (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Filuo ✅ Thanks for proposing the change and happy editing! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 14:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Where in the Earth Infobox can i find the diameter from earth? Or is it me.
Where in the Earth Infobox can i find the diameter from earth? Or is it me. Rouzee Gino (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Well it's not there, but you could always just multiply the radius by two.. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This I know thank you. The point is: if you search for it by diameter on Google it’s not there. But if you do the search in Dutch it’s there. So younger people search on diameter. This is my point.
 * kind regards 212.233.46.212 (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Earth approximates slightly squashed ellipsoid. It'd perhaps be informative to include its radius at N & S poles AND at the Equator at 0°, 90°,180°, and 270° as well as the minimum and maximums and both with and without considering sea level. Anyway, it doesn't have "a" diameter. I'm not even sure that the gravitational center is exactly on the spin-axis, but it's not likely to be exactly midway between the North Pole (surface) and South Pole. Also, "average" is a bit ambiguous. Mean? Median? is the distribution sufficiently close to normal (gaussian) so that the standard deviation would be useful? If so, include em, I say.72.16.97.19 (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Info box
The note about ice shelfs, etc. is misplaced. It should be added to Land area and Ocean Area and removed from the total area. As far as total area, should there be a note that mentions that as the planet ages, it accumulates mass from space and also is shrinking due to cooling (and degassing)? That is, the total area does change with time. ? Why not? 72.16.97.19 (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)