Talk:Earth/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Tellur, Telluris, Gaia in the alternate names infobox section have no citation. They appear nowhere else in the article, nor do they link to any explanatory articles (and, to me, seem to be nowhere near common knowledge or inclusion worthy). The attached note only appears to explain why "terra" is not one of the alternate names. At the very least a ^{[citation needed]} tag ought to be added, or these names removed. 89.176.87.169 (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Done I hope that turning each of those to internal wikilinks is sufficient to address your concerns. Technical 13 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I honestly do not see how that is sufficient. The alternate names from the infobox just got pasted into the article. There is still no source at all for the claims that these are alternate names for Earth, and second, the Telluris link just links back here to Earth. The whole passage "Other possible names may be Tellus or Telluris,[note 1] and even Gaia. People sometimes call Earth "our planet" or "the world" in English." suffers from the issues addressed in the above edit request, and particularly the second sentence really ought to be removed as OR. 62.77.119.80 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Seems to meet the threshold for validity to me. Can you show me a reliable source that shows they are not alternate names for Earth? I would think the fact that one of them is a redirect to the article itself should be verifiability in of itself. If you disagree with this, I suggest taking Telluris to WP:RfD. Technical 13 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the two ISPs have a point. Gaia and Wiktionary:Gaia each indicate that it is a name for a Roman goddess. They are pantheistic, not scientific. This is, essentially, a scientific article.

Tellus, too, seems more mythological than logical. Terra seems tolerable. Student7 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am genuinely confused by your response. Surely a circular redirect is not a valid source. Nor is an interlink to a disambiguation page which then leads to an article about a goddess. (the IPs are both me, just different connections) 89.176.87.169 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Already done Technical 13 (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

For a long time, the Earth article infobox used the Blue Marble photo taken by Apollo 17. Now, however, the infobox uses an artificial computer mosaic created in 2002. The 2002 mosaic is inferior for the following reasons:

1. The Earth, a natural object, is best served by a natural photograph if natural photographs of it exist. They clearly do. Imagine if the infoboxes for humans, animals, plants, and other natural objects used computer-generated images (or computerized mosaics) instead of natural photographs. It would be absurd and unscientific.

2. The computerized image is fake looking. Compare it to natural photos of Earth. The ocean color looks unnatural, the cloud cover is not extensive and dense enough, the coastlines have a fuzzy look to them, etc.

3. The computerized image shows a gibbous Earth (see Japan and the Philippines), whereas the Apollo 17 Blue Marble shows a full Earth (or very close to full).

Recently, the infobox also contained (briefly) the photo of Earth taken by Apollo 8. This photo has the distinction of being the first photograph of the planet ever taken by a human operator. It is also an excellent image and could better serve the Earth infobox, although it does show a gibbous Earth.

Someone with the appropriate privileges should change the infobox image back to a natural photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.25.214 (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. However, that picture is currently in the "Moon" part of the article. Would it be okay to remove it from there, so it can be returned to the infobox without creating repetition? Anonimski (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Since nobody seemed to mind, I restored it, and fixed the other issue. Anonimski (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.25.214 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Good call. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Tellur, Telluris and Gaia in the alternate names infobox section have no citation. They appear only once in the article, in a recently added sentence with the rather uncertain wording that "other possible names may be...," again with no source. The attached note only appears to explain why "terra" is not one of the alternate names.

The interwiki link to Tellur leads to a disambiguation page which in turn leads to an article about an ancient agricultural goddess, not a valid source about the name being an alternate designation for Earth. A [citation needed] tag ought to be added to the above names, or a proper source cited, or these names removed.

You might notice this request is similar to an earlier one which has been repeatedly marked "done". However, other than inserting the aforementioned sentence, nothing has actually been done to address the issue. 89.176.87.169 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. Since this is featured article, the sourcing must be rock solid before any alternate names are put back in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The timestamp for the number of artificial satellites in orbit is October 2014, which hasn't happened yet. Should be October 2013, the date of the source. 76.202.219.123 (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes and I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that there is no largest city on the article. Would someone add largest city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.10.95 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What constitutes the "largest city" on Earth is actually quite complicated and depends on which of several definitions of "largest" and "city" you're using. See World's largest cities for more on that topic. Shpowell (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Scientists lately say that in a period of millennium, the water surface of earth will rise up and go over Hawaii's land surface.

Earth's scientists and Historians have always thought that the first human bones were from Africa but have now found that there are older human bones in Asia.

Scientists- (pl.noun) A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more physical or natural sciences. Sci-ent-ists

Millennium- (noun) A period of 1000 years. Mill-enn-ium

Surface- (noun) The outside part of something. Sur-face

Historians- (pl.noun) An expert in or student of history. His-tor-ian-s

 Not done You need to be more specific. Where exactly do you want to insert this and what sources do you want to use? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

One would think that the earth's location within the universe deserves it's own section? Everything is located somewhere and so is Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.19.217 (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It says its within the solar system, which has its own article which tells where it is in relation to the galaxy. There's no point in getting too detailed in this article. Student7 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is 'Earth' always used in this article, rather than 'the Earth' as in common parlance. It reads swkwardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.144.83 (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Earth" is used in the scientific community and this article treats it as a planet, rather than anything else. We wouldn't say "the Mars" or "the Venus". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Earth, ... is the third-most distant planet from the Sun" Shouldn't that be "the third-closest planet to the Sun" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.223.23 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Yes, definitely. Thank you for pointing that out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Earth - Mostly Harmless ArcaneCrevalISaveItAll (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Remains to be seen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would simply like to point out that wikipedias use of the word "myth" in the "Cultural and historical viewpoint" section is highly offensive to most people who beleive in sutch things and is therefor counterintuitive to thier policy of maintaining nutral articles to resonable extent, as in "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Wikipedias own disambiguation of the word includes "fable" which follows to an article stating "A fable is a succinct fictional story", from which I am sure you understand the issue with the word "fictional". A much less contraversial word would be simply "story" as in "Creation stories", as that word is far more often veiwed as nutral. I ask that wikipedia would honor thier policy and fix this. Thank you.

unsigned comment added by 174.126.244.103 (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Mythology and the word 'myth' is neutral. This is based off Oxford English Dictionary first definition for 'myth' as being "A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." DJAMP4444 19:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I thought I covered that with the sentance "Wikipedias own disambiguation of the word includes "fable" which follows to an article stating "A fable is a succinct fictional story", from which I am sure you understand the issue with the word "fictional".". However if this is still not clear, I should state that the Oxford English Dictionary's second definition definition of the word "myth" is " A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing". Although it may not be intentionl, many people (aproximatly 88.33% of the worlds population according to wikepedia -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations) who believe in sutch things will veiw this as an atempt to undermine and insult their personel beleifs, a thing I am sure wikepedia wishes to avoid, as per their policy. I should also point out that the Oxford English Dictionary's first definition declairs a myth to be a story by the theird word, so there should be no issue swiching the two. If you do some reserch I am sure you will find that the term "Creation story" is much more widly used and recieved among people who believe in sutch things and should not contradict, or insult, those who don't. If you wish to continue to insist that the word myth is nutrall please base it off some sort of evidence sutch as a survey between interested parties or the like. Otherwise I ask that wikipedia would honor thier policy and fix this. Thank you.

Nope. Myth is is the correct and neutral term. If some people have a problem with that it is their problem not Wikipedia's.--Charles (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

88.33%? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I will ask one more time that some kind of reserch, or referance be included in an answer, that failing, I must concer that wikipedia is disintersted in accurate or unbiased information, or honoring thier policy. I am surprised by the lack of respect for the information I provided in the interest of improving this site for everyone, I thought wikepedia would be happy to make sutch simple accomidations for the benifit of its readers, but so far have been met with cold and unreferanced asertments of absalutes (namely that the word myth is neutral) on what is soposed to be a neutral site. I am disapointed.

Not done: Re-opening the edit request just to prove your disappointment is of no help. Please address the concerns raised by the editors above. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 09:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Nearly all stories are "myths." They are all pov. Which is true? a) Kennedy was a handsome young president who brought style to the United States Presidency:"Camelot? or b) Kennedy was a lecher who had "a woman a day", nearly started World War III, and was assassinated largely because he ignored the suggestions of his Secret Service? The answer is they both are true, but not entirely, and therefore they both are myths. Myths are an incomplete summary from a pov. Nearly everything you read/hear on the media is a myth. Student7 (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A note says there is exactly a 5 million km difference ( to five significant figures ) in the distance of perihelion and aphelion. Here is what other sources give for J2000:

source	a	e	diff in au	in Gm
VSOP2013	1.0000010	0.0167086	0.0334173	4.9991654
Newcomb	1.0000002	0.0167091	0.0334182	4.9993012
VSOP 87	1.0000010	0.0167086	0.0334173	4.9991604

And the averages for J2000 ± 1 Millennia and distances

perihelion	aphelion	diff in au	in Gm
0.983294	1.016707	0.033414	4.998668

Saros136 (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I was so about to change the [[Density|densest]] planet in the [[Solar System]] into the [[Intelligent life|least intelligent]] planet in the [[Solar System]], using the edit summary "'dense' is too informal", but considering that poor Gaia cannot be blamed for our activities, I figure it wouldn't be fair to her. Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder how long it would have stood. :D --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect to Monty Python, we're at least the most intelligent planet in the Solar System. — LlywelynII 17:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed the overly poetic ones which are epithets but which no one ever uses as a legitimate synonym for "Earth" (WP:UNDUE), but torn about including globe. It's certainly synonymous in some contexts but also certainly not a general synonym the way world, Terra, and Gaia can be... — LlywelynII 17:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There is presently no mention of the Earth's ionosphere in this Wikipedia article. I would suggest that it be given a section independent of "Upper Atmosphere", but that might be discussed.

Also, I think that more needs to be said about the magnetosphere. Presently, there is just a short section under "Magnetic Field".

I note that the article is not open to editing. So, I'm not sure how changes are accomplished. DoctorTerrella (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

While the world has known about heliocentricism for some time, the old terms cannot be easily dispelled. The whole point is that our ancestors weren't really "stupid." It does appear that the sun, moon and other astronomical bodies "rise" and "set" though we know it is an illusion. I tried to incorporate in some material from Sunrise. It was reverted. "People still refer to sunrise, a perceptual illusion.(citation)The Earth Is the Center of the Universe: Top 10 Science Mistakes(end of citation). I think this should be in the article. It is not merely "popular" culture. These terms, along with "moonrise" and "stars come out" are nearly universally used. Student7 (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Student7, I think many (or all) of us appreciate the point you are raising. Your content would seem appropriate for the Sunrise article, or maybe some other Wikipage where humankind's perception of the universe is discussed. It is my opinion (and that is all I'm expressing) that the concept about sunrise is not sufficiently central to the subject of the Earth to warrant inclusion, where a myriad of other important issues need to be discussed. This can be discussed, of course, but that in my opinion. Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Perhaps a separate page linking to this.
A list of all the names for 'Earth' in as many languages as possible.
I'll get it started:
Arabic: الأرض، الكُرة الأرضيّه
Chinese (Simplified): 地球
Chinese (Traditional): 地球
Czech: Země
Danish: Jorden; jordkloden; verden
Dutch: aarde
Estonian: maa
Finnish: maa
French: terre
German: die Erde
Greek: γη
Hungarian: a Föld
Icelandic: jörðin
Indonesian: bumi
Italian: terra
Japanese: 地球
Korean: 지구
Latvian: Zeme; zemeslode
Lithuanian: Žemė
Norwegian: jorda, jordkloden, verden
Polish: ziemia
Portuguese (Brazil): terra
Portuguese (Portugal): terra
Romanian: pământ
Russian: Земля
Slovak: Zem
Slovenian: zemlja
Swedish: jord
Turkish: dünya
Spanish: Tierra
Catalan: La Terra
Esperanto: La Terro
Afrikaans: Aarde
Suomi: Maa
Euskera: Lurra
Ido: Tero
Latin: Tellus
Vietnamese: Trái Đất
Hebrew: כדור הארץ
Yiddish: דרערד
Irish Gaelic: Talamh
Mongolian: газар дэлхий
Croatian: zemaljska kugla
Bulgarian: земя
Persian: (فارسی) : زمین
Locrin Iksandr Donnachaidh (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This does not belong in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree it does not belong, but implicitly a much longer list is already there, in the form of links to WP in other languages. The names can be seen in the URL when hovering over one of the languages.−Woodstone (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

NOAA ETOPO1 Global Relief Model lists the surface area as 510,082,000 Km which would equate to a radius of 6371.109 467 Km, to an excessive number of digits. 71.196.151.6 (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC) The Earth's Surface of 510,064,472 km is based on a Radius of 6371.0 Km. This would imply an average circumference of 2*pi*R = 40,030.17359 km, but this number is not Equatorial. The WGS 84 Equatorial Circumference would be 2*pi*6378.137 =40,075.01669 km which would be rounded to 40,075.017 Km. 71.196.151.6 (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A little typographical error in article (in unit conversion): 1.7 AU (250,000,000 km) 1.7 AU (255,000,000 km) Total surface of the Earth: 510,064,472 km². Equatorial circumference: 40,030.2 km. Source: NASA.

For some reason, the value quoted for surface gravity is the equatorial value, and not the mean value. The nav box says not to change anything without discussion here, but I was bold and changed it anyway. If someone wants to know the strength of gravity of Earth, they want the mean value, not the value at the equator. Having this in the navbox is useless, and worse, misleading. The fact that the previous value had a cite is irrelevant, it was citing the wrong value. No-one uses equatorial gravity in equations unless they're doing experiments that are specifically going to be conducted at the equator. Please do not change it back to the useless value. Quantum Burrito (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

So I went to the cited article (no. 17) and found the information: g = 980.665 cm/s^2, consistent, with round-off, with the result Quantum Burrito has entered. The result, however, is not on page 5 as indicated in the article, but on page 52. Strangely, I can't seem to locate the reference when I pull up the editor for the References section. It seems, somehow, to be hidden. So I can't fix this small problem. DoctorTerrella (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, that seems to be due to me being unfamiliar with the new-fangled way of doing references round here> I've changed the page number on your recommendation and I think I did the cite properly this time. Quantum Burrito (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Currently in intro includes: "It is home to about 8.74 million species." This is absurdly precise. The uncertainty is estimates of the species count is in the millions: there is no point in expressing it to three significant figures. Ordinary Person (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That claim has two references. One is a book published in 1988, so way out of date. The other is an article with the headline "8.74 Million Species on Earth", but which, upon reading further, highlights how imprecise that figure is. How about we go with "...at least 8 million species"? HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. I just changed the article to say "... over eight million species." I believe "over" is the best usage as "at least" implies a strict floor of precisely eight million which is not the case. Jaywilson (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the following from the hydrosphere section:

(If all the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 km.)<ref group="n">The total surface area of Earth is {{val|5.1|e=8|ul=km2}}. To first approximation, the average depth would be the ratio of the two, or 2.7 km.</ref>

Seems to be someone's calculation. However, it is rather poorly worded and in need of a WP:RS to support it.
I assume it means something like the following:

If all the Earth's lithospheric (or crustal) surface was at the same elevation, the depth of the resulting world ocean would be more than 2.7 km. but it would still require a reference. Vsmith (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

While I understand that Wiki doesn't want to report original research, I've seen examples of where this prohibition seems to have been take to ridiculous extremes (quoting distances between cities, for example). So, in this case, I kind of feel that these sorts of "calculations" are helpful to many readers. I wonder if we might tolerate some calculations like this -- assuming that they are done correctly and worded well, of course! Thoughts of Grandma (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Well - did a bit of googling, found: If it were possible to spread the oceans accross a smooth and perfectly spherical planet, their depth would be more than 2000 meters. Albi, Edward F,, Earth Science Made Simple, Crown Publishing Group, e-book, Apr 28, 2010, p. 56 (also a 2004 paperback isbn ISBN 978-0767917032 )

and Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres (8,812 feet) deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on Earth’s surface. from Britannica

and If the planet was a perfectly smooth sphere, the oceans would cover the entire globe to a depth of 2.8 thousand meters. Third rock from the Sun - restless Earth Vsmith (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Added modified version w/refs to the article. Vsmith (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Great sleuthing, and the sentence is well-worded now. CorinneSD (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The "fact" that the earth is smoother than a cue ball (in this article under Composition and Structure/Shape) has been circulated in reputable articles and books for years, but has been shown to be false. See http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2013/june13.pdf Note that the citation in the Earth article is to the World Pool-Billiards Association rules in regard to the allowable size of a cue ball, not the shape or uniformity of a cue ball, and there is no citation to any source about the shape of the earth. I will remove this text soon if there is no dissenting discussion. If anyone has suggestions as to text that could be used instead, please discuss. Jaywilson (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

So I used the numbers for the elevation of Mt. Everest and the depth of the Mariana Trench, this gives a difference in altitude-depth of 8.848 + 10.911 km = 19.759 km. I suppose this should be divided in half for a deviation about a "mean", giving 9.879 km. If we divide this by the mean radius of the Earth, 6371.0 km, we get 0.16%, which is pretty much the result quoted in the article (0.17%) and both are less than the 0.22% quoted for the cue ball. Of course, there might be more sophisticated ways to do the calculation, using the standard deviation of topography or something, but one might ask why that would be necessary.I remember hearing this comparison when I was a student. It isn't a really "profound" issue, but it is something that people can kind of relate to. Thank you, DoctorTerrella (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

From the infobox we have equatorial radius 6378.1 km and polar radius 6356.8 km, so from that alone, the deviation from a sphere is 0.34%. Mountains close to the equator are higher than close to the poles, so that will add up. However the real question is: how round is a billiards ball, for which no verified data seem to be available. −Woodstone (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I see, so there are kind of two issues: roughness AND roundness! Thanks, DoctorTerrella (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of our discussion, there are THREE issues: roughness, roundness, and size. The WPA web site is apparently only defining the limits on the size of the cue ball, as defined by its (spherical) diameter. It is not attempting to define how round it is or how rough it is. Read the Colorado State link I provided to see that a cue ball is actually much rounder and smoother than the earth. So, DoctorTerrella, your calculation is correct, but the 0.22% is not the number to compare to. A typical cue ball is actually smooth within 0.01% (1 part in 10,000 or as measured, around 1-3 microns variation in a cue ball 5.625 cm across.) As to roundness, Woodstone, the Colorado State article covers that, too, in its final paragraph, where it says that a cue ball is spherical to within 0.001 inch or 0.05%

A piece of clear tape is 50-100 microns thick, so a bit of clear tape stuck to a cue ball (a variation of 0.1-0.2%) is about the right scale to represent Mt Everest. You could feel it if you ran your finger over it. And it would definitely be disqualified from use in a match. It would probably get you beat up in some pool/billiards halls.  :-) Jaywilson (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Jaywilson, personally, I find all of this interesting. It puts a few issues in perspective, and into terms that the layperson would find interesting. I don't think the issue should be removed from the Wiki article, but, instead, augmented. Can you do this for us? Thanks very much! DoctorTerrella (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

While I will accept the compliment and invite you to read my latest blog post on this (http://jayblogwilson.com), I will decline your invitation to grace an encyclopaedia article with the debunking of a persistent science myth. I started my research on this because of Neil deGrasse Tyson's reference to the cue ball earth in The Pluto Files, then in the course of research found a reference to the wikipedia entry. I agree it is a fascinating subject to research, as I have discovered billiard rules, bowling ball scanning technology, and some science blogs that I never knew existed. But it is frustrating how persistent a myth can be when it is disproved with easily known facts and a calculator in five minutes. (Height of Everest/diameter of earth ≈ thickness of clear tape/diameter of cue ball)

As for the wikipedia article, the problem remains that the current text has no scientific reference and is wrong. Currently the only course I can suggest besides deleting "which is less than the 0.22% tolerance allowed in billiard balls" is replacing it with "which is rougher than a billiard ball" and cite the Colorado State article. I would like to say "which is about as rough as a billiard ball with pieces of clear tape stuck on it" but I don't have a source to cite besides my own blog. Jaywilson (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm advocating writing something interesting and accurate, not just removing content. DoctorTerrella (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the following text to replace that sentence: "Local topography deviates from this idealized spheroid although on a global scale these deviations are small: The maximum deviation of only 0.17% is at the Mariana Trench, while Mount Everest represents a deviation of 0.14%. If Earth were shrunk to the size of a cue ball, some areas of Earth such as mountain ranges and oceanic trenches would feel like small imperfections, while most of the planet, including the Great Plains and the Abyssal Plains, would actually feel smoother than a cue ball." (cite Colorado State article http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2013/june13.pdf). Jaywilson (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jaywilson, I like what you've written! Sincerely, Grandma (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Cute! Maybe too cute for an encyclopedia. And, no, we are not trying to capture the hearts of readers. Just minds! Capturing hearts is a media aspiration. Let's leave that objective to them. Having said that, the wobble doesn't sound bad and the figures put it into perspective. Oblateness has been exaggerated for adults, it would seem. More round than oblate to the eyeball, apparently. Maybe that part could be emphasized a bit, but I don't have any suggestions other than what is there to emphasize this. Student7 (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Student7, I don't understand your hearts and minds comment. I'm trying to build consensus to still illustrate how smooth or rough the Earth's topography is, but with a statement that is accurate and has a source that can be cited. I have suggested specific language. I will go ahead and make the edit, as I believe what I've suggested satisfies DrTerella and Grandma. Jaywilson (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Two suggestions regarding the table "Present-day major heat-producing isotopes":
1) Add a column at the right side containing the percentages of the total internal heat from each isotopes Heat release measured in W/(kg*mantle).
2) Sort the table by descending percentage.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandcenter (talk • contribs) 09:32, 18 March 2014‎

There is a lag between minimum/maximum exposure to the Sun and local temperature. The maximum exposure is on December 23rd or so, or June 23rd or so, depending on the hemisphere. However, the maximum cold or heat (in an "average" year) is achieved maybe six weeks later on February 15 or August 15, depending on the hemisphere. There must be a thermodynamic or climate way of referring to this lag and documenting it here. Anyone know the name for the condition? Student7 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I have any direct evidence from a formal study, but if you look at average temperatures in various locations worldwide, and include places that are far north (say, Norway - south is less populated), as well as temperate zone, far inland vs coastal (or within 300 miles of sea or ocean), I think you'll find that the timing of seasonal highs and lows varies significantly. Look at record highs and lows as well as averages. This is not to say there isn't term for the lag, but heating and cooling are not uniform processes when looked at on a small scale compared to the size of the whole (Earth, in this case). It's possible that the lag has no term because it has few especially relevant general properties, that most of them are specific and localized. It's just my guess, but have you looked into this? Evensteven (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What Evensteven is saying is correct. The Earth, with oceans, topography, and lots of other complications, will not show a simple temperature response to what I think is called "insolation". Of course, we could, for theoretical purposes, consider an idealized Earth, one with spherically uniform properties. This would show a lag as Student7 suggests, between measured temperature and insolation, this lag being the result of what amounts to a sort-of thermal inertia. Of course, we have ocean tides, they being the response of the ocean to the gravity of the Sun and the Moon and the relative motion between the Sun and the Moon and the Earth. Sometimes scientists describe other periodic phenomena driven by celestial motion (rotation, orbits, etc) as "tides". And we know that there is a lag between the ocean tides and the position of the moon, this being the "age" of the tide. So, while I'm not suggesting that any of this needs to appear in this article on the Earth, there might be some related terminology for the "age" of thermal tides. Just saying, but again, this whole subject is kind of peripheral to the article Earth. Still ticking, Grandma (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Peripheral because it applies to all planets with an atmosphere which are inclined to the ecliptic?

You're right about "insolation." I would have thought there would be a thermodynamic term... See seasonal lag. Student7 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just suggesting that in the mix of all of the many, many topics that only get the barest discussion in this widely-encompassing article on the Earth, that this particular issue probably doesn't merit discussion in the article itself. Right now, for example, we barely have an adequate discussion of the ionosphere. Still, I know that other editors might have opinions different from mine.

As for the article on seasonal lag, yes, that is relevant to the annual "thermal tide" and its "age", but there are lots of other periods here, including diurnal, as you certainly already recognize. There might be thermodynamic terminology for all of this, or maybe not. For now, Grandma (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you say "the Venus" or "the Jupiter", I think not, "...the earth" is the ground we walk upon. Earth is the planet we walk upon ( not "the Earth"). If we were living on Venus we would not say "the Venus". If we are going to use a name for the planet we inhabit then that is Earth (not "the Earth"; you surely wouldn't say "the Venus", would you). If we are talking about a planet we do not prefix the planet's name with "the". We don't say "The Jupiter" or "The Saturn". We just say "Jupiter" or "Saturn"; however, if we were inhabitants of some planets in our solar system we may well say "We were walking on the jupiter" or "I was walking on the saturn" or even "If I were walking on the earth" and if we were those inhabitants, and discussing the other planets we would not talk about "the Earth", (as if it were somehow special), but we on Jupiter or Saturn would refer to the third planet as "Earth", not "the Earth". We might say something like "I saw a gibbous earth today" ( or a half earth or even a full earth) Jodosma (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that you're looking for consistency where it doesn't exist. "Earth" is both a proper noun—what we now know is 'our' planet among who knows how many others—and the term we use for the surface of the planet, synonymously used for 'soil' or 'dirt'. For the vast majority of its history, the noun earth and its semantic values have not developed in the same environment as modern observations such as the pedosphere or the lithosphere, and its usage shouldn't expected to entirely conform with our modern knowledge of these systems. For a very long time, we existed solely on (the) Earth and everything around it was understood in relation to it, and in some ways that are difficult for us to comprehend now (theonymically, for example).

In short, I wouldn't get hung up on the definite articles; like all aspects of language, they're subject to change over time. Near relations and linguistic ancestors (see Proto-Indo-European) didn't have them at all. Consider the Moon or the Sun or any number of the [book titles], for example; we may as well say the Jupiter or the Venus if we're going to go try to artificially curate and prescribe article usage in celestially bodies. Personally, I don't think that we should insert arbitrary prescriptivism here but rather stick to natural, if specialized, usage. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Bloodfox, many participants on this talk page probably agree with you. I suppose my opinion is that the issue is that we need to encourage (1) a bit of talk before making changes that have already been talked about (recently) on this (yes) very-same talk page, (2) a bit of process, and, (3) even, a slight amount of consistency (note the word "slight") on what is otherwise the mountainous landscape of the English language. Still living on "the" Earth, my favorite planet, Grandma (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We all say simply "Venus" or "Jupiter". Many also say "the Earth" (frequently, but not consistently). It's the way the English language is actually used. No one person decides how it is used, or what is proper. Usage also can shift and change over time. Languages are dynamic in construction, and every language has quirks as well as blatant inconsistencies. We must live with it. But actually, it sometimes makes a language richer. This item about "the", however, is just a nit. No one is stopping you from using "Earth" exclusively, for yourself. But on WP, it's general use that prevails. Evensteven (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You may be right.

I didn't want to appear to fink out on Grandma, but she says she has retired. In most science fiction stories, they use the term "Earth." But maybe we don't want to use fiction as a source! Student7 (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, re Grandma, she can change her mind any time, and while she's here I say welcome. :)

As for science fiction as a source, it still depends on "source for what?". For science, no. Nor fiction for most factual or actual topics. But as illustration of real-world topics or ideas appearing in literature or some such, ok. As for common English usage, probably not on WP, because it's not prominent or universal enough. If we really need to establish what is English common practice, then we need to have an RS on English common practice who has researched widely and drawn referenceable conclusions. And that RS might use science fiction in the research. But for us to do so would be WP:OR. Meantime, we can also take "the" here as a minor enough point that there is not need to belabor what is or is not common usage. It's easy enough to see both being used. Look at the article sources we already have for other points, and see that many use "the". And mostly I'm just saying that we don't need to sweat this one, as it makes no real difference to anything, not even English usage. Evensteven (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Tellus to the "also known as" list, first paragraph. Both Tellus and Terra are the latin words for the Earth and are both more common than the greek Gaia. Also, for clarification I'd suggest adding that "the earth" is sometimes labeled as ⊕ (which is shown in the title above the image). Lastly, I think that we should add which languages the different words for earth come from. So it could read something like:

Earth, also known as the World, Tellus or Terra (Latin) and Gaia (Greek), sometimes labeled as ⊕, is the third planet...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.53.6 (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it'd make the first paragraph a little too long. There are many languages and I don't think it is necessary to add more of them Tetra quark (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the assertion that Tellus is "more common" than Gaia. I've NEVER heard or read of Tellus used to mean Earth except in some Roman mythology stories, while I often encounter Gaia referring to the ecology or 'spirit' of Earth in popular, "green" and scientific/ecologic contexts (not that I agree that it is a scientific term). A google search of Gaia Earth gave me 159 million hits while Tellus Earth gives 102 million, most of the latter seem to refer to companies with that name.173.189.78.87 (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The lede claims that 71% of the surface is "covered" with water. This is really vague and if you stop and think about it, pretty meaningless. Does it include ice and snow? Does is only include permanent coverage? What depth 1mm, 1 inch, 1 foot, 1 meter ... is the criteria used for inclusion? Technically, except for surfaces above 200°F, the ENTIRE Earth is covered with a layer (film) of water. That's why thickness matters, besides just being clear. In the Surface section, the following text is murky, to be polite:"The Earth's terrain varies greatly from place to place. About 70.8% of the surface is covered by water, with much of the continental shelf below sea level." What does this run-on sentence mean? Does it mean "much of the continential shelf below sea level" is or is not covered? Why is altitude important here? Given our seasons, it is pretty clear that some part of the surface is only covered for parts of the year. Giving a single number fails in describing the complexity and gives a static picture. Incidentially, a recent finding is that the estimates for water coverage in the Amazon basin were off by a factor of 2-3. I don't know if this significantly changes the 70.8% figure.173.189.78.87 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What, no mention of tides? Vague it may be, and imprecise. Not all that confusing though, really. Evensteven (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the NOAA, the 71% is the percentage of area covered by the oceans. Mikenorton (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The terminology used is based on that used for all places, including towns, cities, states and nations. See, for example, {{Infobox_country}} and parameter percent_water =. That this might be metaphysically analyzed, or etymologically dissected, did not occur to the original constructors of these boxes.

I would not particularly like to go back and re-insert a new (and more precise?) definition of what the term water pertains to in every place article. Maybe it could be inserted in the template instructions, but this would not make it available to every reader. Maybe there could be a generic definition someplace. Here? And maybe this is not a serious question since it is a term that all of us have heard, with all it's vagueness, since the fifth grade. Student7 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is nothing to "solve" here. That level of precision is not called for, and the imprecision is not confusing. Evensteven (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest adding a pair of sentences to the Orbit section that describe the shape of the Earth's orbit. For example:

The orbital path of the Earth about the Sun does not form a perfect circle, but instead the planet follows elliptical track with an eccentricity of 0.01617. As a consequence, the distance of the Earth from the Sun varies by 4.8 million kilometers over the course of a year.

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like this article to include the actual current accretion rate of the Earth. Around my house, the soil seems to be getting deeper at the rate of about 4 inches in 20 years and the house is NOT sinking (on bedrock). It would be nice to know how much new material is being added to the Earth every day/year and how much larger in diameter the Earth is getting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Dell (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Compared to the mass of the Earth, the increase from accretion is exceedingly small.[1] The accumulation about your house is more likely explained by other factors. Praemonitus (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed one incorrect statement added to the infobox on Jan 6th, but also have doubts (not disproofs) about additions to the "Longitude of ascending node" and "Argument of perihelion" items also originating from that date. Would someone please check those items again for accuracy? Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So, I often go back and forth, writing one essay with "the Earth" and the next with just "Earth", but trying to be consistent within each article, if not amongst them all. This article, however, mixes up the two usages. Is there some usage guidance on this eternal issue? Curious, DoctorTerrella (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! Better go with "Earth" or we'll have to change the name of the article as well. Also see my comment (inspired by you) on the talk page of Moon. Jaywilson (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think that common usage should prevail, and that most often, common usage is "the Earth". I also think that both forms can be used in the article. There are certain situations where "Earth" is appropriate and there are many others where "the Earth" is more commonly used. I don't agree with User:JorisvS's recent edit removing every last "the" before "Earth". Calling our planet just "Earth" is following the model of our naming of the other planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc., but it's almost as if we were from another galaxy and were speaking about "Earth" as just another planet. Referring to our planet as "the Earth" is following the model of our naming of the Sun, the Moon, the stars, and the solar system. Unless there is consensus to force a change in the way we call our planet, then I think both forms can be used in the article, and which one would depend on the context. CorinneSD (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I generally prefer "the Earth", and that is what I use in my own writing. For this article, I simply advocate consistency (with exception given for the title "Earth", and exception that I can understand. Taking care of things, Grandma (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I prefer "the Earth". CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think professionals tend to use "Earth", whereas layman often tend to use "the Earth" (or even "the earth"). I think the reason why the definite article is now often dropped from "Earth", but not from "the Moon" or "the Sun", is because "moon" and "sun" are used to mean 'natural satellite' and 'a planet's host star', whereas no such word exists for "Earth" in the same context. This means that the definite article is not necessary for clarity for "Earth", whereas it is for the Moon and the Sun (of course the cap would be sufficient in the written language, but not in the spoken language). --JorisvS (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using "the Earth" in prose within the article. The idea that all instances of "the Earth" must be excised from the article is absurd and rather goes against good English usage. Use "the Earth" when it makes a sentence read better and just "Earth" when that reads better. No one is calling for the article title to be changed. This 'pedia is not written for "professionals", but for "laymen" (ordinary folk) and to suggest that we must drop <underline>all</underline> instances of "the" because "professionals" do it is rather absurd. Vsmith (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I was under the impression that Featured Articles had to be consistent. Serendi^podous 13:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." Ah, but rules that require poor writing should perhaps best be ignored. So write for the reader and not for the rule makers. Vsmith (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's try our best, though, Grandma (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant for everyone (professionals and laymen alike). This means that it is important that we be understandable to the layman, but does not mean we can't use professional language. Who decides when something reads better with or without the definite article? --JorisvS (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@JorisvS, professionals don't have a convention on the use of "Earth" versus "the Earth". Just do a google search, for example, on "AGU" AND "the Earth", or "USGS" AND "the Earth", etc. Furthermore, in the spirit of cooperation, we've been discussing how to proceed, here, even as you've jumped in and started changing things. That doesn't seem very polite. Please play along, thank you, Grandma (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Rather than going through and changing some, or many, of the instances of "Earth" back to "the Earth", and having to argue about each one, I'd like to suggest that User:JorisvS undo his/her own edits. Before those edits, it was mostly "the Earth" with some instances of "Earth". Then we can read through the article and decide whether each instance is appropriate and sounds right for that particular place, as User:Vsmith suggested. I think that will result in only a few changes. CorinneSD (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes with, sometimes without. Rothorpe (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Grandma. I wasn't suggesting that there is some sort of "convention". I was only saying that it was more common among professionals, which does not mean there are no professionals who do use the definite article. --JorisvS (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@JorisvS, okay, but I, at least, used to be a "professional" and I'm not aware that "Earth" without "the" is, as you assert, "more common". Right now the essay jars with "the Moon". Let's unwind the edits you made, and, then, in good Wikispirit, try to develop a consensus. Thank you, Grandma (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that they have long since completed their discussion on Wiktionary:earth. See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:earth. Their conclusion, with fewer people, was to use "the Earth" for the planet.

To make another point, note that the word is German, not French in derivation; therefore no gratuitous need for an article, like "the hour" (French). In other words, "the" Earth only needed to make the point that it is the planet, not loam. Student7 (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts and for the link, Student7. I'd like to point out, though, that German grammatical rules do not apply to English. When writing English, the grammatical rules and usage customs of English prevail. I get your point about distinguishing between the planet and the soil under our feet, but I thought that distinction was usually made with the use of the capital letter for the former and lowercase for the latter. Even "earth", meaning soil, can be used with or without "the" depending on how it is used. I think the primary reason for using "the" is because there is only one Earth, one of the heavenly bodies with which people in the past were familiar -- thus, "the Sun", "the Moon", "the Earth", and the collective "the stars". CorinneSD (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a bunch of other inconsistencies. In the article, we say "the surface", "the lithosphere", etc., etc., and, yes, etc. So, given this, why not "the Earth"? And, indeed, the Universe uses the for the Universe, but that page (a different subject, I know) make inconsistent use of "the" article for the Earth. ;-( Grandma (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

JorisvS We're kind of awaiting your participation in this discussion. CorinneSD (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear. But once again, I'd like to see a mixture: all-or-nothing does not reflect how English is used. Rothorpe (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Rothorpe, many, if not quite all, of us would agree. It is not a black and white change that needs to be made. See the early section on etymology. I've pretty much left that as it was, just a small change. I also invite you to jump in and contribute! Always wanting the best, Grandma (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Another issue I've become sensitive to is the simple over usage of the word "Earth" in this essay. I've relaxed this a bit in my recent edits, figuring, as is reasonable, that the context is already pretty obvious. Details are so important, Grandma (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, thanks for your replies. It's looking good. Rothorpe (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through the entire article, mostly replacing "Earth" with "the Earth", although there were a few exceptions, such as allowing "Earth" to be an adjective, and some exceptions in the etymology section. Still, as always, things are likely not perfect, and other editors are free to proof read and correct. Thanks! Grandma (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

My 2c - I use "the Earth" when focussing on earth-based topics, but drop article when using it in same sentence as Mars, Jupiter etc. (though keep it if use in same sentence as "the Moon"...)Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Why, when questions of this sort arise, is it so common to see the answer in terms of either/or? Both forms are used in English, both are acceptable. Not even consistency is required. Sometimes the language just flows more smoothly with one form, sometimes with the other, which is probably why most of these choices are made. But contexts also differ, so language needs can differ also. I think it is far preferable to beg off this question entirely and let the article be free to apply wording that suits each usage. There is no "best"; there is only preference. This is a solution in search of a problem. Evensteven (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit of 6 Dec 2014 by Apipia removed "the" as the first word of the article, a good edit in my opinion, appropriate both under WP:LEAD and in referring to the planet by emphasizing its proper name. But the edit summary lists a reference, [2], which is by no means WP:RS and should not be considered definitive in any way. It's simply an opinion piece posted on the Internet. And whatever its argument, common English usage simply does not follow a consistent pattern. Whatever objections some people may make for "the Earth"-style usage, the planet is, after all, the one-and-only Earth, not an Earth, one among several or many, which no doubt explains the article. Is it really necessary to resort to presenting WP:RSes about this? But if the article is going to have to obey an iron rule, then I think it ought to be because we have sources that say so, not just some agreement among editors. I doubt sufficient ones can be found. Please let it rest. Evensteven (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you say "the Venus" or "the Jupiter", I think not, "...the earth" is the ground we walk upon. Earth is the planet we walk upon ( not "the Earth"). If we were living on Venus we would not say "the Venus". If we are going to use a name for the planet we inhabit then that is Earth (not "the Earth", you surely wouldn't say "the Venus", would you). Jodosma (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Further to my last: If we are talking about a planet we do not prefix the planet's name with "the". We don't say "The Jupiter" or "The Saturn". We just say "Jupiter" or "Saturn"; however, if we were inhabitants of those planets we may well say "We were walking on the jupiter" or "I was walking on the saturn" and if we were those inhabitants, and discussing the other planets we would not talk about "the Earth", (as if it were somehow special), but we on Jupiter ot Saturn would refer to the third planet as "Earth", not "the Earth". Jodosma (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We all say simply "Venus" or "Jupiter". Many also say "the Earth" (frequently, but not consistently). It's the way the English language is actually used. No one person decides how it is used, or what is proper. Usage also can shift and change over time. Languages are dynamic in construction, and every language has quirks as well as blatant inconsistencies. Live with it. Evensteven (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It should just be "Earth" if you are going for consistency in this article. "The sun" is not necessarily analogous to "the Earth", and saying "the Earth" is slightly questionable since there is only one, and that usage would seem to be a vestige of expressions like "the world" or "the planet". However, given different sentence structure and meaning, sometimes you might indeed prefer "the Earth" for stylistic reasons. Is there a reason this article should have a consistent usage other than capitalization? If there's some dispute over it, who really cares. I'd get rid of the definite article entirely, personally. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 23:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I too recognize Earth sans article as the consistent form, and a reasonable case has been made above for its grammatical "correctness" (mostly based on consistency). I'd personally he happy enough to comply. But I also recognize that common usage is the standard here, and that common usage, if consistent enough, becomes identified (over time) with grammatical correctness. At present, common usage is inconsistent, using both forms. I don't regard that as important to understanding English, or to writing it in a formal way. Thus, I am arguing that inconsistency should also be allowed in the article. To do otherwise is to try to enforce a rule that does not apply to English correctness. Hence, it would be artificial, something to be avoided on WP. There can easily be (and sometimes are) way too many editor cycles wasted on establishing, patrolling, and enforcing artificialities. It's an unproductive matter to argue about, and to worry about. Evensteven (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced the Earth with Earth, per our lead sentence and every other place name. It's a bad habit, and a common one. I'm sure someone will revert me. Sorry for not reading much of the above. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many noun phrases containing "the" which refer to a unique object, including other places: "the Sun", "the Moon", "the Milky Way", "the Solar System", "the Netherlands", "the White House", and so on. It's a feature of English and not an error. Semantically, these phrases fill the role of proper names, but grammatically they behave as ordinary noun phrases such as "the table", etc. Spacepotato (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not an error, but it's not the better choice for this particular place, especially given the article title and lead. Our Manual of Style aims for clarity and conciseness. If we can take almost a megabyte and many extra syllables (some people read aloud in their heads) away, without losing meaning, Wikipedia wins. There are other examples that use the definite article, but none of these are planets. Consistency is only meant for similar things. Otherwise, ducks would be compelled to wear fashionable clothes in the water. Nobody wants that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this discussion, but I see that you've locked the article with a missing letter. (what is a "laye"?) Dbfirs 09:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I note that while I was away, the controversy around "the" was "settled" essentially by administrative fiat while putting a stop to edit warring: a good action (to stop warring), but not a good resolution. While the issue of "the" is trivial, the issue of editorial opinion in articles is not. Using "the" is one opinion; not using it is another. It would be best to recognize that neither "side" is correct. English usage is simply English usage, like it or not. Both are used; neither is a bad habit. Fiat leaves disagreements to fester. What is it about this matter that leads to an edit war? Nothing else but a refusal to relent in the face of overwhelming general practice (demonstrating both usages) and to cling to personal preferences. I have no argument with the state of the article either way. I do have a determined stance that any editing (and arguing) based on the personal preference of an editor is inappropriate, be one an administrator or no. It would be a disgrace to consider that this matter has been decided in favor of one "side" or another. Evensteven (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven, a corresponding discussion concerned, very concerned, with whether or not to capitalize "universe", some of it stridently for vs stridently against, can be found at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters Read it and weep. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you mistake what I was saying; please re-read. My point was about editorial opinion, its inappropriate place in articles, and its negative effects upon discussion, resulting in useless arguments like these. The disgrace lies in accepting them as a "consensus". There is no disgrace in accepting the edits as a practical end to a useless dispute. (I fully expect that there was a consensus to be done with the dispute.) Evensteven (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you can add your evenhanded perspective to the universe discussion. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I'll look, and give what little time I can. Evensteven (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Dear Sir/Madam There appears to be some minor discrepencies with your earth topic.

sun equatorial radius = 6.37814×10^6 (metres)

Assuming the earth to be a perfect sphere the volume is given by

Volume = (4×pi×R^3)÷3 = 1.0868529×10^21 (cubic metres)

Again assuming the earth to be a perfect sphere the surface area is given by surface srea = 4×piR^2 = 5.112084×10^14 (square metres)

Kind Regards Colin Wright 15/02/2015

GreenLadder (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The values in the article are referenced, your calculations are not. It is not a perfect sphere. Vsmith (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) The earth's mean radius is 6371 km, this gives a volume (assuming a perfect sphere) of 1.083206916846×10^12 cubic km - basically the same as is quoted in the infobox. The same radius gives an area of 510064472 square km, close to the quoted value. I don't think that there's a problem here. Mikenorton (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed a few days ago, on Feb. 11, 2015, that the semi-major axis (a) and eccentricity (e) had been changed. The "latest edit" at the bottom of the page was dated that day, Feb. 11, but I don't know whether the a and e values were changed on that date or earlier. But checking again just now, I find that the error persists.

The "a" value is given both in km (149,513,000 km), and in AU (1.000 000 11 AU). The AU value for "a" looks perfectly reasonable, but the km value is incorrect, I believe. In any case, it is inconsistent with the AU value, together with the definition of the AU (which, in the Wikipedia article for that, is given as 149,597,870,700 m). The previous value of "a" in this article was 149,598,261 km; I don't know whether the AU figure for "a" has changed.

The article is semi-protected, and I can't correct it; in any case, all I could manage in that regard, would be to apply the two definitions above to compute "a" (to 1 part in 10⁸, which is the precision of "a" given in AU), and I feel that a more expert hand is wanted for a more thorough check of these figures with some authoritative source.

So I'm issuing this as a "cry for help," in the belief that this page is blemished, and in hopes that someone who is capable of both determining the correct value and editing the page.

Fredgds (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The source given for this and other parameters in the infobox does not match the numbers that we have there - the source gives 149,600,000 km for the a value and doesn't use AU at all, so I've no idea where our current numbers came from - I'll try to find a source to support the more precise numbers used. Mikenorton (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that this source uses the 'official value' for the astronomical unit, then we have a sourced value of 149,598,261 km (which also turns up here) corresponding to 1.00000261 AU, for the earth moon system barycenter. The eccentricity given in the same source is 0.01671123. Mikenorton (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made those changes and added the Standish source to support them. Mikenorton (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and just added that new image in the template. I believe it is a better one; it has more vivid colors. If anyone's got a problem with it or something, feel free to revert. PS: Check the description of the image for more info Tetra quark ^(talk) 07:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't agree with the change. The new image is in nothing resembling true color, the vertical scale has been artificially exaggerated, and the photo in general has been processed badly with artifacts very visible, especially in the Caribbean and Latin America. It does not represent what the Earth actually looks like very well. I would prefer reverting back to the famous Blue Marble photo, which is barely processed and represents very accurately what the Earth actually looks like. Furthermore, it is an image of great historical significance. Quoting from its wiki page:

NASA archivist Mike Gentry has speculated that The Blue Marble is the most widely distributed image in human history.

Since you have already graciously given permission (thanks!), I will go ahead and revert. I am happy to discuss this and encourage others to chime in with their thoughts. A2soup (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Should this happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InAndOutLand (talk • contribs) 05:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What changes would it entail to the current page? A2soup (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a discussion about what the lead image should be. The two options seem to be the Blue Marble photo and a NASA composite image (both shown at right). Please chime in on which you prefer and why to help build consensus!

I prefer the Blue Marble for two main reasons:

• Likeness to life

The original Blue Marble is a single, virtually unaltered, true-color photograph taken from between the earth and the moon. As a result, it is a highly accurate depiction of what the earth would actually look like from the perspective in the photo. By contrast, the NASA composite image is a composite of a multitude of images captured by satellites in low earth orbit. By necessity, the image is highly processed and the perspective is artificial-- the photographs were actually taken from much closer than the perspective of the image. As a result, although the image represents geographical features well, is a less accurate depiction of what the earth would actually look like. The NASA page on the Blue Marble next generation project that produced the composite image in question has this to say on its limitations:

Areas of open water still show some “noise.” In tropical lowlands, cloud cover during the rainy season can be so extensive that obtaining a cloud-free view of every pixel of the area for a given month may not be possible. Deep oceans are not included in the source data; the creator of the Blue Marble uses a uniform blue color for deep ocean regions, and this value has not been completely blended with observations of shallow water in coastal areas. The lack of blending may, in some cases, make the transition between shallow coastal water and deep ocean appear unnatural. Finally, the data do not completely distinguish between snow and cloud cover in areas with short-term snow cover (less than three or four months). Source.

Composite images are unquestionably very valuable in planetary science, since they contain more information than is possible with a single photo. I believe, however, that the average Wikipedia reader expects the lead photo of an article to portray the subject as it would actually appear. This philosophy appears to be the general consensus for planet lead images, which are all true-color and all single images except for Mercury (composite of 9), Jupiter (composite of 4), Saturn (composite of 2). It should be noted that even these composite images are composed of very few images (and are thus closer to actual appearance) compared to the hundreds or thousands of images that compose the NASA composite image in question here.

• Historical significance

The Blue Marble image has great historical significance. Not only was it taken on the last manned lunar mission, but it also became the iconic symbol of global consciousness. NASA claims that it is among the most widely distributed images in human history.

I conclusion, I believe that the Blue Marble is objectively the better choice for the lead photo. I would happily support the addition of the NASA composite photo the main body of the article. A2soup (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with A2soup. Evensteven (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Blue Marble. Iconic photo and Featured Picture. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I put Earth in vivid colors. XD Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 11:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Great addition. The page more than definitely needs this Mister Meeseeks (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

190.0.24.2 (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC) pulga 79

Sorry, I don't see any specific request here. Could you write out the change that you want made in the form "change X to Y"? A2soup (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Noblem88 (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC) The article states there are 7.2 billion people on the earth. However, the World Health Organization records now estimate 7.3 billion people.

 Done - but as you haven't cited a reference, I've used the same source as before here - Arjayay (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As the world's population is used in several places in Wikipedia, I think the figure should be put in a template so we don't have to keep updating it. It could include 'significant digits', 'as of', and 'numerical or text' options. Praemonitus (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ed.: I put in a request. If that doesn't work, then alternatively: 8.1 billion (using {{data world}}). Praemonitus (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

MansourJE (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

After crashing a mercury-like planet to earth, radioactive elements entered to the earth's core and it makes the electromagnetic s which is useful for us and protects us like a shield in coaxial cables Read more here: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-earth-ate-mercury-like-body-early.html

MansourJE (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That level of detail probably belongs on the "History of Earth" article. Praemonitus (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

earth rotates around the sun and spins 365.26 not 366.26 times 2602:30A:C018:C120:2C57:325B:A822:668E (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: See footnote 6 which mentions Sidereal days. Stickee (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a great section! But most of the material seems to be in the higher level article Planet#Axial_tilt already. Maybe the section should describe differences, rather than repeating the same information. In other words, so we want to repeat the same info for Venus, Sirius 6, Andromeda 9, and the other 10,000 "habitable" (or non-habitable) planets the astronomers claim to have discovered?? Student7 (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

From what I read, much of the information presented appears to be directly related to the Earth. Note that per WP:SS, it is okay to provide some information that is available elsewhere at a higher level of detail. Praemonitus (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added a list and description of every period in the Phanerozoic into the Phanerozoic Article, and I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to place it in this article, or perhaps another article somewhat similar to this.

Hello. It is a great summary of the eras and I would not oppose its addition, but in my opinion, I think that it is already way too large to add this info. My 2 cents. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Eras of the Phanerozoic

The Phanerozoic is divided into three eras: the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic, and consisting of 12 periods: the Cambrian, the Ordovician, the Silurian, the Devonian, the Carboniferous, the Permian, the Triassic, the Jurassic, the Cretaceous, the Paleogene, the Neogene, and the Quaternary. The Paleozoic features the rise of fish, amphibians and reptiles. The Mesozoic is ruled by the reptiles, and features the evolution of mammals, birds and more famously, dinosaurs. The Cenozoic is the time of the mammals, and more recently, humans.

Please write down any comments, questions, or concerns below this sentence. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A concern is the article size, per WP:SIZE. This is already a long article, and your content, while well intended, will increase it even further. Note that there's already an article History of Earth, that covers this material in more detail. Praemonitus (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

...which article is linked under "chronology". Student7 (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I started to replace the sentence about discovering that the earth itself moved, but realized that mine wasn't much better than the original. The problem is to say, as tersely as possible, that people knew for a long time that the planets moved, but didn't realize the earth moved, without saying it negatively. There have been several attempts at this! The current version meets the criteria above but doesn't seem to convey the sense of geocentricism.

How about: "Humans had realized for millenia that other planets moved and discovered that Earth was a planet that moved in the 16th century."" Student7 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"A planet that moved in the 16th century"? Did it move before; does it still? Placement of the phrase in the sentence is important to the sense conveyed.

And the change from the geocentric view of the universe (not just of earth) is much larger than simply the movement of the earth. It was a paradigm shift, with philosophical and religious overtones, which is why the scientific discoveries were misunderstood, and misunderstood specifically as attacks on the philosophy of geocentrism and its religious implications. And that is why the modern characterization of the (inappropriately retributive) reactions of religious authorities as attacks on science is also a misunderstanding. It's best not to try to express too much in too little space. While these things are related, we need to be clear just where the focus of this text ought to be. I think the problem with the original is that it tries to cover the entire context, and fails. One sentence may do to focus on "earth movement", but that's not a replacement, which will need more than one sentence. Evensteven (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the "original" text's problem described above is actually the new edit by BatteryIncluded. For the reasons above, I'm going to revert it as "not an improvement". Evensteven (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Before tackling religion and philosophy, deal with the poor grammar: when exactly did the other planets realized heliocentrism? BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. What do you think of my edit? Evensteven (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice. Glad we talked it over! Too much work for just one sentence!Student7 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But not "too much" work. Many very well-known authors have spent days or more in searching for the exactly-right single word in a piece they were writing. I'd call this a cakewalk in comparison. And the effort is always worthwhile if the result says what is needed, but not more. Expect much more of the same while editing WP! Evensteven (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As an extension of the discussion in the preceding section, I can only say that the title of this article section is ridiculously represented in the text by a relatively small POV (that is, a POV held by relatively few). It's clearly paying homage to addressing creationists and their beliefs. I think the section requires some real NPOV text initially, forming a length that represents actual cultural and historical viewpoint as held by so many. The existing POV can then be neutralized and incorporated as a balanced representation of the view, probably (in part) by shortening its length as appropriate to its notability. Evensteven (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes to make it more neutral. The historical religious viewpoint is most definitely notable from a cultural perspective, so I don't see a need to shorten it further. Praemonitus (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Good changes, I agree. I wouldn't necessarily shorten what's there now, but would put it into better perspective by adding more material. Not all creationists are anti-science, nor do they necessarily pursue adamant views about education, scientific or otherwise. In addition, that's not the only "cultural" or "historical" viewpoint that applies to the article topic. The trick will be in achieving the proper balance for the article in this section, which has the potential to expand into volumes, which is not what we want either. Evensteven (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The main Earth in culture article could stand some expansion, then that content can be used to improve the section, per WP:SS. Praemonitus (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good approach. Evensteven (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change {{val|750|ul=mya}} to {{val|750|u=mya}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.162.73 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? Dustin (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I took a look and it is linked to a disambiguation page, which isn't particularly helpful. On top of that, the first use is also explained by the '(million years ago)' so the link is unnecessary. That's probably the reason for the request. Praemonitus (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done. The unit is explained directly after it, so the link is quite pointless. --JorisvS (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the mean anomaly. Mean anomaly changes every day, so it is unhelpful (and incorrect) to list a static value retrieved in December 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.16.3 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The OP is correct; it is a time-dependent parameter. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Mean anomaly indicates where the body is on its orbit at a specified epoch (time), which does not change. Without an epoch, it is meaningless. But the epoch is specified (J2000). --JorisvS (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

In that case it will need a different reference. Praemonitus (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. The epoch is specified as J2000, but the mean anomaly given is from 30 Dec 2014. We don't know what time of day it was pulled, which would also be necessary to determine mean anomaly. Currently it is misleading and inaccurate. The same goes for all of the other planets, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.16.3 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I had no success trying to find a data reference for Earth's "mean anomaly at epoch" for J2000. That would suggest it isn't a parameter that we have a need to retain. Praemonitus (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As this issue is making no progress toward a resolution, I've tagged the parameter and included an explanation. Praemonitus (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The IP seems to be correct. From Mean anomaly: "The mean anomaly is one of three angular parameters ("anomalies") that define a position along an orbit". The the mean anomaly is more a way to measure where a planet is on its orbit, not an intrinsic property of the orbit itself. It changes continuously and was likely added by a well-meaning editor looking up orbital terms without understanding what they meant. I will make a proposal at Template:Infobox planet to either somehow make this parameter update daily or remove it from the infobox entirely. Incidentally, Earth's mean anomaly at J2000 was ~11.75˚; the current value is indeed for 12/30/2014. A2soup (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Mean anomaly does change with time, but with the epoch (the time) specified it does not. If the mean anomaly is updated daily, the epoch should be updated daily as well. Though the correct value is required for it to be of any use, it is also inappropriate to outright delete it. If no value for J2000 can be found (which is one distinct value!), maybe we could specify the epoch for the mean anomaly separately. --JorisvS (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Mean anomaly for any date and time is easily obtained from WolframAlpha for major planets. The only question then is what is J2000 exactly? Google search (google "J2000 date") puts it at Gregorian 1/15/2000 12:00 GMT (possibly following wiki?). I'm not sure that the mean anomaly at J2000 is a terribly meaningful value, but I would be happy to substitute it in for the currently incorrect values in all the infoboxes I can. Does this sound like a good solution to everyone? A2soup (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Why no english measurements in (parentheses)??? Msjayhawk (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Where specifically? Some sections have a lot of conversions, but other parts, such as in the infobox don't, for what I think are good reasons - scientific measurements that are only ever made in SI units. Mikenorton (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

QUESTION: How Fast Is The Earth Traveling Through The Universe?

Seems one possible suggested Answer (see below) could be better.

Copied from the "Earth" article

Suggested Answer:

"The Earth is moving through the universe at 2,976,000 km/h (1,849,000 mph).^[1]"

References

1. ^ Fraknoi, Andrew (Spring 2007). "How Fast Are You Moving When You Are Sitting Still? => [Daily rotation at "1,000 mph" + Revolution around the Sun at "66,000 mph" + Revolution around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at "483,000 mph" + Milky Way motion in intergalactic Outer Space at "1.3 Million mph"]". Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Retrieved July 3, 2015.

A Better Answer - with Reliable Reference(s) - would be Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - Besides the Answer presented above, there are several other possible Answers - as follows:

• 1. Another Answer gives the speed the Earth is traveling through the universe as follows => 4,383,610 km/h (2,723,850 mph).
• 2. Another Answer is as follows => 3,079,938 km/h (1,913,785 mph)
• 3. Another Answer - seems related - but less clear?

There may be better Answers - with better References - Comments Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not with the sources, but rather with the fact that the speed of the Earth "through the Universe" is not really a clearly-defined or relevant statistic.

Motion is relative. To say how fast something is moving, you have to define a fixed coordinate system (based on some point or points of reference) for it to be moving relative to. "The Universe" as a whole does not have such a point of reference. The first source provided discusses measuring the motion of galaxies relative to the cosmic background radiation. As the source makes clear, however, this is not meant to determine speed "through the Universe" (whatever that means), but rather as a method to compare the relative motions of many galaxies without arbitrarily designating a single galaxy as fixed. Ultimately, I'm just not sure that motion on this scale is relevant to an article on the Earth-- it is galaxy-level motion and tells us something about galaxies or galaxy clusters, but not much about the Earth. The Earth's rotational speed and orbital speed around the sun are more relevant measures of how the Earth moves through space. A2soup (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@A2soup: Thank you *very much* for your *Excellent* comments - and clarifying relative motion in this instance - by coincidence - your comments seem *very* consistent with a response to one of my NYT comments not long ago re the first landing on a comet by the Rosetta mission - if interested, see my comment (and the response) here - in any case - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be glad to see a not off-topic explanation about the reverts please??--Evropariver (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't revert, but to me the sources look dubious. See WP:QUESTIONABLE. Praemonitus (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Quoting the article,

Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%) and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%).

The citation for that is as follows:

Turcotte, D. L.; Schubert, G. (2002). "4". Geodynamics (2 ed.). Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 136–37. ISBN 978-0-521-66624-4.

Here's an article that's suggesting different numbers:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat

That article suggests that it's 50% planetary accretion, 50% radioactive decay. And that article is dated 2011 vs 2002. Should the article be updated with the new source? TerraFrost (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The latter is using a new (and interesting) source of data, so an update seems appropriate. They also state that they are uncertain about the source of the non-radioactive heat. Praemonitus (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. However, this new data shouldn't replace the 2002 data, but should compliment it as an alternate solution. Also, if added, make sure to use (and cite) the actual research paper with its more precise figures. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Tracking that amount of information may be too much detail at the summary level of this article. Praemonitus (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, without a split-off article on the Earth's internal heat, it has nowhere to go but here. There is a stubby paragraph about heat somewhat misplaced at the end of Structure of the Earth#Core that could be expanded into a section to hold this info. Alternatively, we could put it at Geothermal gradient#Heat sources and list that section as a see also on the section here. A2soup (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If the theory is still in flux, perhaps this article could just say something broad like: "As much as 50% of the the thermal energy at the core is supplied by radiogenic sources; the remainder comes from heat left over from accretion, or from other sources." That will leave some wiggle room. Praemonitus (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The culture section is a great place to retain the Blue Marble photo. I was thanked for my efforts to clean it up, but was reverted because I removed some sourced info. But the sourced info I removed was inappropriate. First of all, the previous version was garbled, with statements mixed randomly in no coherent order and the introductory sentence placed last. Secondly, it was a blatant violation of BIAS, as the only religions it mentioned were fundamentalist Protestatism and Islam. If we're going to mention religions, we should do them all. (As I mentioned above, Gaia isn't really notable either except as an example of the third transformation of our conception of the Earth.)

The current organization is as follows: (1) the astronomical symbol, (2) mythological and religious views, (3) scientific transformations of our view, culminating in the photo gallery. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edits constituted a complete rewrite of the section, leaving it unsourced and with a lot of errors in the reference section. I'm dissatisfied with this effort and believe the original, frequently reviewed content should be restored until a new version can be agreed upon. Praemonitus (talk)

They weren't a complete rewrite. For the most part, they were simply a rearrangement of the previous text into something a bit more coherent. Ref tags are fine (though I notice you didn't bother tagging those claims when you edited the section), but gibberish shouldn't be restored. The main novelty is the overt claim that there were three major transformations in our understanding of the Earth, whereas previously that had only been implied. Each one is easy to ref, and I just kept the three transformations that previous editors had mentioned, but there might be others we could add, of which 'the Earth is ancient' is probably the most culturally transformative (at least in the West -- it's not a new idea to other cultures). I'd have no problem with refining the section, but the result should be intelligibly organized (there should be some logical organization to it) and should try to avoid ethnocentric bias, such as discussing e.g. fundamentalist Protestantism but not Hinduism. — kwami (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears then that the crux of your concern is with the following particular text:

A variety of religious groups, often associated with fundamentalist branches of Protestantism or Islam, assert that their interpretations of these creation myths in sacred texts are literal truth and should be considered alongside or replace conventional scientific accounts of the formation of Earth and the origin and development of life. Such assertions are opposed by the scientific community and by other religious groups. An example is the creation–evolution controversy.

I believe it useful to retain this information in some form if only to be 'comprehensive' about the major cultural elements, but I would have no problem with the removal of specific religions being mentioned. Praemonitus (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Why mention that at all? We note religious views. What's the point of saying that religions consider their views to be correct? Isn't that a given? And why single out creation myths, as opposed to religions that consider the Earth to be a mother goddess, or a dream of Brahma, or whatever? I object because including just them is culturally biased, but including all views would be too much for a simple summary, and they don't say anything the reader wouldn't understand anyway (religious people believe their religions are true). The details can be found in the main article.

What if we add a comment about the Earth being ancient, as that's the primary problem fundamentalism Protestantism has with geology in the West, and then mention something about a conflict between science and religion on these points? Any details -- those who still insist the Earth is flat, the Catholic church pardoning of Galileo for saying the Earth moves, Fundamentalists maintaining the Earth is 6,000 years old, etc. -- would be discussed in the main article. — kwami (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

But really, aren't we contrasting the two just by saying X are the religious views and Y are the scientific discoveries? It seems to be that elaborating how the two conflict is too much detail for such a short summary. After all, we don't bother to elaborate how religious views conflict with each other. A conflict between Islam and Hinduism is just as important in its context as a conflict between Protestantism and geology. All TMI. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The section is about culture, and while science has its role, one must argue that religion is more strongly relevant here than elsewhere in the article. It should not just be whitewashed out, as religion is a powerful element of culture. Right now I think the section is becoming too strongly biased in favor of the influence of the scientific viewpoint. Science consumes the remainder of the article, and you've now removed a paragraph of religious perspective in favor of still more science. This too is a biased viewpoint.

The section is in need of more information about religion, art, literature, and so forth. Mention of the various topics you bring up would also be fine by me. They would be appropriate for the Earth in culture article, after which they can be summarized here. The creationism conflict is a topical example of the influence of the Earth upon culture, and so I think it needs to be represented in some form. Praemonitus (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two main influences in our cultural perspective: religion and science, one paragraph each. The science paragraph is not about the scientific perspective of the Earth, but of how that has affected the cultural perspective. The Apollo photos had a far greater cultural effect than the theory of tectonics, though they have far less scientific value. And the four points mentioned have all had a strong impact on religion. Expanding the paragraph on religion would be fine. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than myself might be able to do that without favoring one religious perspective over another. — kwami (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - I *entirely* agree with the comments by Kwami above - and with the "text currently presented" in the "Earth#Cultural and historical viewpoint" section of the "Earth" article - this text seems excellent - and sufficient imo atm - more text can be presented in the main "Earth in culture" article if more is needed I would think - iac - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the addition about the discovery of the geological age of the Earth because it currently asserts nothing about it being culturally transformative. All it shows is a factoid about science history. Praemonitus (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Then why would you want to keep the same point in the bit about fundamentalists arguing over the age of the Earth? It clearly is transformative, but I object to your insistent ethnocentrism -- fundamentalist Christianity is not the world's religion. Although such a biased perspective is not appropriate in any article, it is especially ironic in an article about the entire planet. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The fundamentalists viewpoint differs from the scientific perspective, making it a relevant cultural dispute. Your addition makes no such claim. So why was the discovery transformative? Please explain what you are trying to assert there. If you can't explain it in cultural terms, then it has no relevance. (Yes I already know the history and why it was considered important.)

Looking at that science-focused paragraph again, almost all of the "culturally transformative" discoveries are from a western perspective. I think that true as well with the cultural impact of the geological age of the Earth. Why isn't that presenting a biased perspective? Praemonitus (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Except for the age of the Earth, which maybe should go, the others were transformative to everyone. The idea that the Earth is round was not prefigured in religion. Neither AFAIK was the idea that the Earth goes around the Sun. And actually seeing the Earth as a planet is amazing to everyone. — kwami (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is even possible to prove that they were transformative to everybody, so we can't assert that. We will probably be able to show that they were transformative to those who had strongly differing views, because that naturally creates cultural discord. Hence they represent a likely perspective regarding a minority of the world population−a few countries in Europe. Praemonitus (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - Table below may (or may not) be helpful:

VOTING RESULTS (N=17) - Images of Earth - a/o 3pm/et/usa, 10 August 2015

1. "Blue Marble-1972"(9?)	2. "ElektroL1"(Deleted)	3. "Earthrise"(1)	4. "BlueMarble-1997"	5. BlueMarble-2012"	6. "Blue Marble-1972-CC"	7. "Earth-2015-USA" (3)	8. "Earth-2015-Africa" (3?)	9. "Earth-OceanOnly" (UnAvailable) (1)
A2soup Drbogdan EvenSteven? Huntster Joannebogdan Praemonitus Rfassbind Serendipodous SkywalkerPL	[none]	(70.51.203.69)	[none]	[none]	[none]	BDS2006 Kwami Ɱ	Cinemologist? JorisvS PhilipTerryGraham	Dustin

In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The existing discussions regarding the banner image appear to be NASA-centric and do not represent a worldwide view of the issue. We need to consider all options and not just NASA images if the community is to reach an unbiased and well-informed decision on which image is most appropriate for representing the Earth.

Comparing photographs only on their technical and aesthetic merits in so far as those merits help in achieving a vivid and accurate representation of Earth, I'd like to put this up to a vote so the Wikipedia community can decide which image ought to represent this planet we all happen to inhabit.

I will nominate two photos ("1" and "2", respectively) which I believe are strong contenders as they are the only full disk photographs of the Earth on Wikimedia Commons that I'm aware of. "1" is the incumbent banner image captured from Apollo 17 in 1972 while "2" was captured by the Elektro-L No.1 satellite in 2014 from geostationary Earth orbit.

Please feel free to nominate additional image options below. I look forward to hearing from all of you. BDS2006 (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just added a third option ("3.") which was nominated by an unknown user with the IP address 70.51.203.69. --BDS2006 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the second, it being of much higher quality. That said, the Apollo image (the first) has become iconic. --JorisvS (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the original image is iconic, but at the same time, a single image that is not a composite or CGI and better quality really is more informative. Serendi^podous 09:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I now see that the second image says "in false color", which now makes me prefer the first. --JorisvS (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah. OK. Forget it then. Serendi^podous 10:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If accurate colors is the primary concern for choosing a banner photo, neither of the photos are necessarily the best choice. The original Apollo photograph was shot on a special negative (SO-368) combined with a lens filter that deemphasized blue and caused other alterations to the image's colors. The astronauts aboard Apollo 17 were not instructed to take photos of the Earth, as their equipment was limited and prepared for use in the lunar landing mission. The famous Apollo photo was unplanned. Unlike today's astronauts aboard the ISS, the astronauts of the early 70s didn't have the luxury of calibrating digital cameras on the fly and shooting RAW images. Therefore, understanding that the Apollo image is not a perfect color representation of the Earth (hence why there are countless versions of the Apollo photo color corrected in differing ways including the version here), the fact that the second image (Elektro-L) has also undergone color correction does not make it an inferior image.

The Apollo photo is unbeatable for historical value, but in selecting a banner photo of Earth we need to evaluate the image in terms of the information it contains. The Apollo photo is dominated by the oceans and clouds but we don't see much of the inhabited world. It's a great perspective over Africa and the Sahara/Arabia deserts, but Earth's unique range of geography and biodiversity is not clearly seen. Notice that the Apollo image isn't even the full-disk image it's described as. It's actually slightly gibbous (waning gibbous) in which the shadow is overtaking the right side of the earth (from our perspective).

The Elektro-L has very intentional composition, directly above the equator and includes most of the world's population. It's a detailed image captured with up-to-date, 21st century technology, so there's high informational value. A combination of the photograph's strong composition and high resolution means we're able to extract a lot of information from it. Notice the snow capped mountain ranges throughout Asia and Tibet, for instance. Most of the world's significant islands are clearly visible, including very small islands in the Indian Ocean. Going from North to South we can see both the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle (including Finland/Scandinavia in the North and Antarctica in the South), and West to East we can see from Europe to East Asia and even Papua New Guinea and Australia in their entirety.

Understanding that both options are real (yet altered) photographs, the first one (Apollo) is great for historical value, but the second one (Elektro-L) shows most of the inhabited planet from straight above the equator, is an actual full-disk image, and is very detailed containing a lot of visual information about our planet Earth. Option 2 (Elektro-L) is very informative and relevant as an encyclopedic photo of Earth, therefore I vote for Option 2. Cinemologist (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For me, correcting colors is not a problem. But if the second is in false color, which implies that it is deliberately different from how it would look to the human eye, it would be misleading, especially because the false colors would not be immediately noticeable. However, it seems that although the description says "false color", other parts of say it is not (only that the original with which it was made was), which means that the image description should be corrected to accurately reflect this, and that my preference goes to the second image again. --JorisvS (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your feedback. I hope this discussion will grow to include many voices since we are talking about the defining image of the Earth here. --BDS2006 (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As the editor who restored the Blue Marble photo (number 1 here) with discussion several months ago, I am still in favor of using it as the lead image. The previous discussion compared the Blue Marble to a low-altitude composite and so is not really relevant here, except for the historical significance point. In addition, I was previously unaware that the Blue Marble photo was taken through a blue-desaturating filter. However, I still think that there are objective reasons to prefer the Blue Marble to the alternative presented here.

My understanding of the Elektro-L image from its description on commons is that it was shot without any color filters and colorized to match what Earth's colors are known to be. This does not necessarily mean that the colors are any less accurate than those in the Blue Marble (indeed, they may be more accurate), but the colorization was not done at all well in some parts. If you view the full-size image (zoom in), you can see that in the western Philippines, southwestern Madagascar, islands off the northwest coast of the Malay Peninsula, most egregiously around the bays of India's upper right and left corners, and around coasts in general, the coloration is quite pixelated and frankly ugly.

I also see from the commons description that the outer rim of the Earth (essentially, the atmosphere) was retouched, as it was obstructed when the image was taken. This retouching was done quite well relative to the colorization, but when compared to the Earth's rim in the Blue Marble shot, you can easily see that it may not be very accurate. It seems that the atmosphere in the Elektro-L image was based on backlit images from low orbit like this one. Although I am not expert on the matter, the Blue Marble image suggests to me that the atmosphere may not be nearly so prominent when lit from the front, as it is in the Elektro-L image.

I don't think that the higher resolution of the Elektro-L image is enough to outweigh, its sloppy coloration, questionable depiction of the atmosphere, and the Blue Marble's historical significance. I am not universally opposed to the prospect of replacing the Blue Marble, but the bar is high, and the Elektro-L shot is not the image to do it. Many thanks to BDS2006 for starting this discussion. A2soup (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You're not holding the Blue Marble photo to the same standard of scrutiny. Yes, at 100% scale the Elektro-L image (number 2) contains noticeable compression artifacts, but perhaps the image's sharpness is preferable to a blown-up and blurry image, which is what we get with the Blue Marble at 100% (number 1).

At 100% zoom, the Blue Marble photo suffers countless chemical and digital artifacts, ranging from intense red and blue noise in space and the presence of severe noise across the entire face of the planet, to a thick and sickly green halo artifact surrounding the North, West, and Southern rim of the Earth. On the Eastern side of the Earth, the portion of the planet that's falling into darkness, the image quality again suffers from severe noise and artifacts.

Regarding Earth’s atmosphere, take a look at this recent single photograph of Earth taken by Japan's space agency from approximately the same distance as Elektro-L.

In the linked image, the Earth is certainly "front-lit" and the atmosphere is clearly visible. I compared both the linked image and the Elektro-L image looking at comparable portions of the sun-lit outer rim and they look essentially identical.

The Blue Marble photo, although culturally the most popular, is not the best reference for what a full-disk Earth actually looks like from space. The Blue Marble isn't even a full-disk image. Granted, there is no perfect single shot of a full-disk Earth in existence. At least the Elektro-L image is a full disk photo and it is a sharp image that conveys much more information and detail about our planet than the Blue Marble photo. Every image will have its own drawbacks, however if we are to nitpick about image noise and artifacts then the Blue Marble photo quite obviously suffers far more problems than the Elektro-L. Perhaps the biggest problem with the Elektro-L image is we're really not used to seeing a picture of the Earth that utilizes the best of modern technology capturing images in such vivid detail, and that's actually not a problem at all. We got used to an early 1970s representation of the Earth, but that's not a logical argument for selecting the Blue Marble. As for historical significance, the Blue Marble photo is most relevant in articles relating to historical subjects such as achievements by NASA and articles relating to the Apollo missions.

Let's remember that this discussion is for the Earth article. The subject of historical significance here should be the Earth itself, a planet billions of years in the making, not a photograph taken 40 years ago. So, the real question is which photo most accurately depicts the planet we live on?

The Elektro-L photo (number 2) still gets my vote. --Cinemologist (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The first one looks much more natural to my eyes. There's a hint of a shadow along the right edge that suggests a spherical shape, and apparently a highlight at the center from sunlight reflected off the Indian Ocean. The second image looks a bit like a fish bowl view. Thus the first gets my preference. Praemonitus (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

My persona preference is Earthrise. It shows Earth as a small world, there being other worlds out there -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: You are always adding and adjusting images of astronomical objects-- perhaps you would like to weigh in? A2soup (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank you for letting me know of the discussion - seems all the suggested images above (ie, "Blue Marble"/Image-1; "Elektro-L"/Image-2; "Earthrise"/Image-3) are "Excellent" imo - but my preference (as well as that of User:Joannebogdan) atm would be => "Elektro-L"/Image-2 as a banner image for the Earth article - seems this is the clearest image and, as a result, may best represent the article - iac - Thanks again for the opportunity to comment/vote? - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW (I'm no expert), I vote with Drbogdan here, same reasons. Evensteven (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! To get a final read on consensus, maybe Serendipodous and JorisvS could give their current opinion? They were the first to discuss this, but it's not clear to me which side they ended up on. A2soup (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Anon, the Earthrise is not a picture of Earth (but of Earth as seen from the Moon with part of the Moon itself visible), and hence is inappropriate for use in the infobox. --JorisvS (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a literal interpretation. I remember when it was taken, and it was always considered a picture of the Earth then, taken from far away, and showing how far away by presenting a moonscape in the foreground. It's always been about the Earth. "Inappropriate" is perhaps too strong. Less useful for the article? That I can agree with. These days, there are more vibrant images available. But the perspective of the Earth far away is still a powerful image, a perspective that we've grown used to. That perspective was an eye-opener when it was first published, and can be again for anyone who really considers what it represents. Evensteven (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Earthrise is inappropriate for this article, which is about the planet Earth. It would be appropriate for an article about Earth's relationship with the moon, but not here. Right now I'm still leaning toward the Blue Marble, but I'll go with consensus if it blows the other way. Serendi^podous 21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Honestly! Do you not see that's basically what I was saying, that we shouldn't use it? But you're simply wrong that it's just "about Earth's relationship with the moon". It's about the fact that Earth is our home. All our history, our cultures, our civilizations, our existence has played out on this globe, over centuries, and all the time humanity focused on the different locations on its surface and what happened at each. The image puts that into perspective: it all happened here - Earth is one place - it is small, even viewed from so miniscule a distance as its moon. The focus of the image is about Earth, not about the moon. The moon is only there to give it the proper perspective. Is that so hard to understand? Don't be such a legalist! It's self-limiting! And it can limit articles too, if it causes people to put artificial limits on article scope. I'm not saying that's been a problem here, but legalistic thinking can always lead to such problems. What's an encyclopedic article but something that concisely tries to put a topic into perspective? Without perspective, also called "context", information is mere data, a miscellaneous collection of raw facts that do not have any particular meaning. We're in the business here of mining the data and presenting what it means. Let's not forget that! Evensteven (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Earthrise is not an image of Earth, because you can also see the Moon. It's as straightforward as that. --JorisvS (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@JorisvS: That's an opinion; it's as straightforward as that. My opinion is that yours is rubbish (and vice versa); it's also as straightforward as that. Let's agree to disagree about what is or is not an image of Earth. It doesn't seem to affect the proposal here. Evensteven (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Weighing the strengths and weaknesses of all 3 images as presented through the fascinating and remarkably informative arguments in this discussion section, I now feel sufficiently informed to cast my vote. Every image is flawed in its own unique way as you have all collectively pointed out. Nonetheless, one of these images compensates for its flaws more generously than the others.

Let me first explain my reasoning. Although no image is perfect, there is certainly educational value in being able to click into a photograph and see a striking amount of detail (information). I feel more well-informed about the appearance of our planet when looking carefully at the second image. At 300px, both 1 and 2 are clear depictions of the Earth from space. But even at thumbnail size, the second image maintains two key advantages over the first. Firstly, it is a true full-disk image (as opposed to gibbous) and, secondly, it's centered on the equator. The second point is important for a number of reasons: it depicts the Northern and Southern hemispheres evenly and the equator makes a natural midpoint for astronomical, electromagnetic, and geographical reasons. Furthermore, 80% of the world's population can see itself in that image. Only the Americas do not make an appearance in the image; every other continent is visible. For those reasons, I feel compelled to cast my vote for the second image (2.).

I would like to send a heartfelt thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion. I'd also like to encourage further input from anyone who hasn't had a chance to speak. I will respect whichever decision is arrived at by the WP community on this and all other matters. --BDS2006 (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Evensteven: It's not. The infobox requires an image that shows what Earth looks like, and hence and image of Earth. An image of Earth is an image that includes only Earth. Earthrise is an image that includes Earth in it, but not exclusively. It depicts not how Earth looks like, but that it is just one small world (as you've correctly said) and a view of it from the Moon. There is value in including it, but it is not an image appropriate for the infobox. --JorisvS (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have stated repeatedly that I don't think it belongs in the infobox, and I agree that the best reason for that is that it does not depict what the Earth looks like in itself, surely a reasonable criterion for the infobox. And I have also stated repeatedly that Earthrise puts the Earth in perspective, which is its especial value, making it valuable for inclusion elsewhere in the article. What is the argument, then? Evensteven (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a discussion about the image in the infobox and you started defending it when I stated to the anon that its use in the infobox is inappropriate. But apparently we agree about it. --JorisvS (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Correct. We agree that there is a better image to use in the infobox, but not that Earthrise is "inappropriate". It is entirely appropriate that it be considered. It is iconic, and it is all about Earth. It is not your decision to support another image that I object to, but to your reason for rejecting Earthrise, as though it should never have been included. Do you understand me now? Evensteven (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you now seem to disagree with me again. It is quite inappropriate for the infobox (for the reasons I've already specified). It is not inappropriate in the body of the article, though. --JorisvS (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course we disagree on one point, as I have said all along. I don't understand why it seems to you that I have changed what I'm saying. But I have pointed out before that our disagreement doesn't and hasn't prevented either of us from settling on a different image for the infobox. Can we now agree to disagree on why? Evensteven (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

But what do you disagree with me on exactly? --JorisvS (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That "Earthrise" is not an image that is "inappropriate" for the infobox, that it is also "about Earth" despite the moonscape, that it is iconic and extremely recognizable as depicting important aspects of the Earth, that Earth's physicality and astronomical data is not all there is to the article scope even if that is a major focus, and finally, that I still think there is a better image for the infobox. What I hear in your "inappropriate" is a denial from you of everything I just said, except the agreement about the infobox. I am aware of the main thrust of the discussion, but I think it's important that these discussions keep their proper perspective also, and I have made a point of this because I think your "inappropriate" also implies that the discussion should have been within narrower boundaries. I can't agree to that either. BTW, the "one point" we disagree on is "inappropriate", the point where all these things meet. Evensteven (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Finally some clarity where the disagreement is. However, what you say in the middle confuses me. What is your point exactly? --JorisvS (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If I interpret "middle" correctly, I guess it's a way of emphasizing how your word "inappropriate" sums up the disagreement, standing opposite to my list. I do understand that we're simply looking at these things from a different standpoint, holding this thing or that thing as having greater or lesser importance. But I figure that one of the reasons for holding discussions is to air such standpoints so that everyone can take a look at them, and I just wanted to ensure that here. I'm still comfortable with agreeing to disagree. Evensteven (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm apparently not going to understand what your saying with the current approach. Let me try it another way: What would be appropriate about using it in the infobox? --JorisvS (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

In general, I think an infobox image should be something that elicits (as much as possible) the article's essence, its scope, and its focus. I think it's helpful when that image can also be visually gripping or engaging in some way: that's what images do best. So, it gets the reader's attention, and hopefully conjures an intuitive picture in the reader's mind that represents the article topic. Now, I think that Earthrise is not the most visually gripping image there, but of all of them, it is the one that offers the most perspective. It puts Earth in its place in the universe, as much as an image could. And as it puts our home in the universe into perspective, it also puts our own perspective of Earth itself in its place by focusing our attention on the big picture rather than the detailed close-up we (humankind) has always had. We look at it, and we get perspective on ourselves. And the Earth is the reason for the place, because it has always been our place, our home. So, this image offers, uniquely among images, the opportunity to consider what kind of a look at the Earth we are going to take here. That's an appropriate opportunity, and if chosen, it would be an appropriate perspective to offer the reader. On balance, I find that the article itself is more limited, dealing primarily with physical properties and mostly "close-up" astronomical details. Other images offer a better depiction of that, so that's why I chose one of those. But they're all appropriate for consideration, imo. Evensteven (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done - updated the banner image on the Earth article to the "Elektro-L"/Image-2 - which received the most votes (6 of 10; a/o 10:10am/et/usa, 2 July 2015) - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a vote, but I do feel that consensus is on the side of the Elektro-L image for now, and not without good arguments. I'll take it as a call to find a better modern, high-res Earth image without the artifacts present in this one. Farewell, Blue Marble... *sniff* miss you always... A2soup (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

PERHAPS - Another full-disk image (NASA; "BlueMarble-2"?) of the planet Earth *may* be a possible consideration? - at the following => http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/54000/54388/BlueMarble.jpg - and described at the following => http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=54388 - However, the image credit ("Image created by Reto Stockli with the help of Alan Nelson, under the leadership of Fritz Hasler") *may* make the NASA image unavailable to Wikipedia? - if there is further interest in this image, we might want to ask User:Huntster, who may have experience with such images, for an opinion - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK at the moment - the "File:Earth-BlueMarble-1997.jpg" image (see below) was created *entirely* by US Federal Government employees - including those primarily from NASA, NOAA and USGS - and, as a result, the image *may* be *entirely* suitable for use by Wikipedia after all - in any case - Comments Welcome on the use of the image as a banner image for the Earth article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a huge fan of this one. It is a CGI image based on real data from disparate sources. It is relatively low-resolution and doesn't look much like either the Blue Marble or Elektro-L, which makes me think that it probably is not very lifelike. Thanks for suggesting it, though :) A2soup (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Rather low resolution and are Earth's colors really that vivid? --JorisvS (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Doc. I tend to agree with A2soup here...it's just too CGI-esque for my taste. I honestly feel that the Apollo 17 remains the best representative images of Earth. However, the far larger issue in my mind is why the Elektro-L image is even viable for inclusion. Yes, the uploader says the license is CC0, but I'm finding no evidence that it was released by Roscosmos as such. It would certainly be unusual for them. I've asked the uploader about it on Commons, so hopefully I'll get a response. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This very recent, hi-resolution image was taken by the Japanese weather satellite Himwari-8 in October. I don't know what it's copyright status is though. This one's a mosaic, but it does seem to be in true colour. It's also from NASA so it's free to use. Serendi^podous 13:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Himwari-8 material is likely copyrighted, as JAXA's stuff is by default. The NASA mosaic is not a good candidate as it is more of a fish-eye view of Earth...somewhat distorted. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

YES - agreed atm re the NASA mosaic image (see below) - others may (or may not) wish to comment - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This one shows the USA as being the size of Asia, which is puzzling, and also pretty inaccurate. A2soup (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So I know we have a lot of candidates already, but I found one that I think is worth having on the table (added to the gallery at top, with a small version down here to avoid clutter). The criticism of the Blue Marble that resonated most with me so far is BDS2006's assertion that it was taken with a filter/film combo that de-emphasized blue and caused other color artifacts. I can see that the color scheme in the Blue Marble is, in fact, different from the other images (including Earthrise), which are all basically similar to each other. So I found a color-corrected version of the Blue Marble, which has been altered to match the color scheme in Elektro-L, Earthrise, and others. I don't think that the color-correction should be too much of an issue, since consensus supported Elektro-L, which is a non-color image with all the color added in processing. I'm still fine with Elektro-L, but if it turns out to have copyright issues, perhaps this image can be considered as a way to address at least one concern with the original Blue Marble (which is still my first choice, btw). A2soup (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

New DSCOVR image

NEW - ADDED a recently released "Earth" image for possible consideration - per NASA, 20 July 2015 - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-composite? Check. Taken in color? Check. No obvious digital artifacts? Check. I can get behind this one 100%, although I don't necessarily prefer it to the Blue Marble. I look forward to more images from DSCOVR soon! A2soup (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging participants in the original discussion (especially those who preferred Elektro-L) to comment on this new candidate from DSCOVR vs. Blue Marble: Huntster Praemonitus Serendipodous BDS2006 Cinemologist Evensteven JorisvS. A2soup (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The DSCOVR image seems considerably inferior to the Blue Marble image. Hardly any landmass is visible; it's mostly just clouds. Again, I don't understand the opposition to the Blue Marble image... — Huntster (t @ c) 00:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I still prefer Blue Marble as well, but I figured that since more editors wanted to change it last time than not, it was only fair to let them know that another candidate comparable to Elektro-L was available. A2soup (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Why the opposition to ocean? The earth is 70% ocean, and a representative photo would reflect that. Our bias for land means we often convey a false impression of the earth. I prefer the Blue Marble myself, but your point strikes me as a reason to support the new image. — kwami (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• This first DSCOVR image is wonderful, but I still prefer the Blue Marble because of its historical importance. Maybe we can fit both in the Earth article? Or perhaps we can sub the DSCOVR img for the Blue Marble in a few of the articles that use it, to give the reader a bit more variety. — kwami (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That's certainly an idea (subbing in a few articles) I could get behind, but may I suggest that we wait until a broader array of DSCOVR images are available, preferably for one that is a little cleaner. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

IMO that's precisely what we shouldn't do. The muted colors are real. They took special care with this first image. In later images, the red and green components will be downsampled to 25%, with only the blue at full res. Also, they plan to subtract out atmospheric scattering to sharpen surface detail, but at the cost of making the images less realistic. If we want to show the reader what Earth looks like from space, this first image may be our best bet. — kwami (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Lakdawalla discusses the DSCOVR images here. She also explains why North America is exaggerated in size in MODIS image. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, good find! She discusses (with direct quotes from a DSCOVR project scientist) how this first image was specially processed for verisimilitude rather than science data, but the rest won't be. A2soup (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure the first img is biased in that it was purposefully timed to center on NAmerica, in contrast to the original Blue Marble, which was just a random shot. But it is also closer to representative as to how much water there is on the planet. — kwami (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This new one looks like a good option, for the reasons kwami and A2soup have given. Apollo's Blue Marble is the only other real option, because img#2 has apparently been deleted for being released by Roscosmos, img#3 is not an image of just Earth, img#4 has horrible colors, and img#5 shows North America way too large compared to how it would actually look. The Apollo image is of such historical importance that if we opt for this image in the infobox (which I think we should), it should still be included in body of the article. --JorisvS (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

---

 Done - updated the banner image on the Earth article to the new DSCOVR "Earth-2015"/Image-7 - which seems to be sufficiently supported at the moment - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering how we could retain both images, and the culture section does it well. I copy-edited, as it was a bit jumbled. Sources mention three post-antiquity culturally transformative ideas: the Earth is round, the Earth is a planet, and the view of the Earth from space. The Gaia hypothesis IMO belongs in with the mythology section (it's a modern permutation of Mother Earth), but it is also a product of the Space Age. (It's not really notable in such a short summary except as an example of how the Blue Marble affected culture.) Anyway, I hope the result is a bit more coherent. — kwami (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

DSCOVR gives NASA the dubious distinction of being the last major space agency in the world to capture a full-disk photograph of the Earth from a satellite. That being said, it is the most true-to-life photograph of our planet to date. Not the most detailed, but certainly accurate. I only wish they upgraded the sensor after taking it out of storage after 17 years. Sensor technology has advanced dramatically since 1998 but I guess they decided to save $1000 by keeping the old 4 MP sensor. Literally any sensor used in any mass-market DSLR from the past decade would put the one on DSCOVR to shame. And a shame it is that after 17 years and $340 million, NASA ultimately used a sensor comparable to the one in my BlackBerry phone from 2008, which cost $20/unit to produce in China. Considering that all sides of the Earth will be captured fully-illuminated by DSCOVR, I think this discussion will continue for some time as we debate which side of the Earth most represents the Earth, however absurd that may seem. Unsurprisingly, NASA's favorite view includes the United States. I only hope we will see more images with the same level of integrity as this first one; NASA is infamous for altering and even outright fabricating images of the Earth and then marketing them as, "the most accurate image of the Earth" (see images #4 and #5 above if you think I'm using hyperbole). In conclusion, I applaud NASA for deeming the Earth a worthy subject for photography. --BDS2006 (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The new photo from NASA is absolutely stunning and long-overdue. DSCOVR is far greater than the Apollo 17 “Blue Marble” precisely because it’s not historical, it’s now. I’m not voting for it yet though, I’m waiting for NASA to release subsequent photos.

Bear in mind, from a distance of approx. 930,000 miles we’ll be able to see almost 50% of the surface of the Earth. Since alternative DSCOVR photos are bound to come out in the near future, DSCOVR will soon be competing with itself for the Earth banner image.

Sadly after 40 plus years the image detail is only a slight improvement over the Blue Marble but at least we’re finally seeing carefully-calibrated colors. It's scary that NASA is saying they’re surprised by the detail of the images, it seems they were expecting much worse out of the 2048x2048 image sensor. I agree with BDS2006 that DSCOVR appears to be refurbished 1990s technology. Additionally, probably due to the way the image is processed, artifacts do appear in the image, most noticeably the artifacts surrounding the rim of the Earth that somewhat obscures the otherwise beautiful enveloping halo. Likely the low resolution images are an easy solution to the problem of bandwidth. Subsequent photos of the Earth will have two color channels (red and green) downscaled to 1024x1024 but considering the blurriness of this first 2048x2048 photo I think it won’t be very noticeable if those two channels are upscaled to 2048x2048 and combined with the 2048x2048 blue channel. Contrary to what kwamikagami said, it seems NASA will continue to release images processed in the same manner as the first one (“unprocessed”), however they will also release more heavily processed images that emphasize land more like the Elektro-L photo.

I’d like to propose two ideas for how to choose the ideal banner image from DSCOVR:

1. A photo taken in mid to late September because the equinox occurs on September 23 this year. The Earth’s axis will be tilted neither towards the sun (as it is now) nor away from the sun (as it will be in the winter) but rather tilted 23 degrees to the left of our perspective so that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres will be equally represented in the photo. This is ideal because it maximizes our ability to see the entirety of the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Notice how this first photo from DSCOVR is emphasizing North America, it’s because it’s currently summer in the Northern Hemisphere (the Northern Hemisphere is angled towards the sun/camera) and therefore the camera is capturing less of the Southern Hemisphere. I really hope NASA times the photos well, because with Earth positioned similar to how it is in the Elektro-L photo with the Southern tip of India near the center of the photo it will now be possible to see even much more of Earth: the entirety of Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, half of Antartica and the North Pole. All of the Earth’s Oceans will be at least partly visible in the photo as well.

2. The alternative idea is to have the Earth banner image update every two hours to reflect our planet as it appears most recently (perhaps this idea is too bold, but it would be amazing).

There will be lots of stunning images flowing in from DSCOVR soon. There will even be images that juxtapose the Moon passing the Earth which will look amazing, but perhaps not most appropriate for the Earth banner image.--Cinemologist (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Kwami found a blog post where it is discussed that only this first image was processed with verisimilitude in mind, and that future images will be processed for scientific utility rather than realistic appearance. The reception this one has gotten may make them backpedal on that a bit, but I haven't seen any indication of that so far. We should definitely keep it in mind when considering future DSCOVR images. A2soup (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Earth has often been personified as a deity.

According to the Encyclopedia of World Religions, "Though from earliest times heaven was believed to be the residence of a high being or a prominently god, the earth as a personified entity is much rarer; it probably first occurred among archaic agrarian civilizations, and still does in some primitive societies...". This appears to conflict with the above statement. The earth-mother concept is strongly associated with neo-paganism,[3] and I have to wonder if this is the source of some of the wording of the paragraph. In mythology there are any number of mother goddesses, but fewer that are actually associated with the physical Earth—the Earth Mother. Praemonitus (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. — kwami (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

and Terra in some works of science fiction) in partial reference to science fiction, by that description is not professional editing. The name Terra in science fiction comes from pre-informed reference as a Latin scientific name. If Terra is used in the informative sense as (and Terra in Latin scientific), then those that read it here are thus informed that it is in use in certain fictions.

Terra is not currently used in science except in compounds, but I agree that we need to clarify that the word is Latin. I've done that. Dbfirs 16:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible we can change the infobox image to this DSCOVR image of Earth instead? I honestly don't know why the America-centric view of Earth from DSCOVR was plucked and the African-centric view not even discussed. The America-centric one is inferior because:

• The continents are easier to observe in the Africa-centric image, as opposed to the America-centric image, where one would have difficulty even seeing the landmass in the image at 300px, especially if one isn't skilled in geography.

• There's a lot more identifiable features and land types, such as forest, desert, seas, oceans, islands and more in the Africa-centric view than the America-centric one, where only oceans and clouds are visible, if one can't perceive where the landmass in the image is. Even if one can, there's hardly anything identifiable because of the lack of color difference.

• Because of such, the Africa-centric view is more representative of Earth, and thus would be better suited for use in the infobox than the American-centric view, which is less recognisable and less representative.

• It's a high-quality PNG file, unlike the JPG being used currently; the Africa-centric view looks more smooth and clean as opposed the JPG American-centric view which looks rather sharp, especially with the vast amount of clouds in the image.

This image is simply far better as a photograph of Earth than the one being currently used in the infobox. It should replace it. Philip Terry Graham 05:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. --JorisvS (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for the comments - yes - I agree as well - the infobox image has been updated from the old image to the new image (although, afaik atm, png may have more raster rendering issues than jpg?) - *entirely* ok w/ me to rv/mv/ce the edit of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC).

It is also rather land-centric. I do not have the capability to search with ease on my current device, but are there any non land-centered images available? Most of Earth is covered in water, yet this image is Africa/Middle East/Eurocentric. I'm doubtful that there are any images centered anywhere but on land, but if there is a chance, it may be worth checking. Dustin (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That may be true, but it is also important for the main image of the article to be instantly recognizable. The image as it stands easily satisfies that, while some vague image of open water probably wouldn't. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good point. I can't say that Africa is any better than North America as a "center", and I don't think either satisfies some quest to avoid being self-centric. I expect it's futile (therefore silly) to try that. But I agree that a good bit of continental coastline (at least) would make it crystal clear that the image is of Earth, and that truly is central. It doesn't matter to me if it's Antarctica, as long as it says "Earth". The other qualities of the image are more important than the continent that is shown. Just my opinion. Evensteven (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Just as a side note, Evensteven, for the reason as to why an image of the Earth centered on Eastern Africa is any better than North America—or Asia, Australia and Europe for that matter—is because humankind originated from that region. We are all Africans... -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 15:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not to be snide, but in my opinion: rubbish. I am not African any more than I am European (though my ancestors were European). And while the origin of humankind is a matter of some discussion, I am not one of those who objects to the thought that God's manner of creating him may have involved an emergence from Africa along the lines often described scientifically. (Whatever any person's starting perspective, it is rather human to presuppose that one knows more than one really does. The commonly-heard "Biblical" objections are not Orthodox interpretations.)

But that entire topic is about humanity (and its origin), not about Earth, which in my opinion renders Africa a side note in context. Indeed, the same is true of any continent, except that a coastline does serve to make Earth the more recognizable as Earth. Although, thinking again, doesn't an ocean do the same? (At least until we discover another world that has one that's not frozen over?) But that point didn't strike me so hard at first, and I doubt it would occur to everybody. We are too land-based for that.

So I'm saying basically that the Africa preference is limited to those who wish to focus on a scientific detail, or perhaps also on some (I'm not saying you) who would wish to drive home the point that that is the detail we all should focus on (for there are science-based political activists just as there are "Bible"-based ones.) My preference would be for neutrality from any of the "correctness" doctrines (so aggressive in self-promotion), in an effort to focus simply upon the Earth itself. I dislike the fact that there is so much contention in the world over disputes like that, that I am forced to take such a position. But given current circumstances, we should not ignore the fact that such issues will be very active in the minds of some readers, because if they boil over, the "discussions" will certainly be anything but rational. Let there be peace on Earth. Evensteven (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely, whether Neil Armstrong's "giant leap for mankind" referred to a trip from the Kennedy Space Center to the Near side of the Moon, or to humankind emerging from the African savanna to exploring outer space for the first time, is not only relevant to those who focus on a scientific detail: it's a rather profound philosophical statement beautifully represented by The Blue Marble -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 23:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it is. And Armstrong's quote works for me both ways. Giant leaps, after all, serve to extend widely. Cheers! Evensteven (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Could the Val template be changed to display gigayear or gyr?

To be consistent with units used in the article?

The template Val seems to be displaying the wrong unit. The unit entry is Gyr for gigayear, but the display is Ga for giga annum. Thank you, --Jcardazzi (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

I moved information comparing the two hemispheres from the article Northern Hemisphere to this article. The change was deleted here and restored there!

Of course, we don't place non-WP:TOPIC material in other articles because it would then need to be maintained in both places (or multiple places. My favorite was the article Hoboken, New Jersey which once insisted that it's major airport was Kennedy International Airport!)

The paragraph was perfect for this article which contains information both hemispheres. Student7 (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I replied to this at Talk:Northern Hemisphere, where the same post was made. A2soup (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. Please continue discussion there. Evensteven (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Guess what? Earth is 6k years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoTrack (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is, if k ≈ 7.6 × 10⁸. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Greetings, I would like to know whether I can edit this page with this information and with this reference.If yes pls guide me Earths magnetic north pole is moving northward at a rate of 10 miles per year. ^[1]

Anjali das gupta (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not read Earth's magnetic field first and work your way up, before starting to edit the parent article Earth with this topic? Rfassbind – talk 17:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

When 'The Earth' is searched in wiki search bar, it comes but we're not getting the option to edit it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.103.132 (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Due to persistent vandalism, this article is currently semi-protected. Register as a user, make a handful of valid edits and you too can edit it. Mikenorton (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The interior of this planet is divided into three parts :-The Crust,The Mantle and the CoreM.Aabid Meman (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That's true at a very simplistic level. Slightly more detail is given in this article, and even more in Structure of the Earth. Dbfirs 16:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)