Talk:Earth

Why the attempts to suppress alternative names?

What's behind the apparent objective by several editors to suppress information about Earth's several alternative names, i.e. Gaia, Tellus as well as Terra? Only the last of these were mentioned in the article, so

1. I added all three to the planet infobox with the requisite alt_names= parameter.
   • This is cursorily reverted by user:Woodstone with no explanation.
2. So I reintroduce this information.
   • This is also reverted, this time by user:Ckatz and with the tautological explanation "alt names not needed in infobox".
3. Again I reintroduce this information, now with the edit summary "Who decides without discussion that "alt names not needed in infobox"? Woodstone? Ckatz?)"
   • User:Ckatz then reverts with the explanation "PLease discuss rather than simply returning"
4. I readd the infobox line with edit summary "Hey, YOU discuss! You started removing this with no explanation.".
   • Again user:Ckatz reverts, edit summary "Actually, Woodstone removed it, you're the one adding it (since Oct 2) Discuss first please"

I'm rather baffled by these actions. Could someone please explain to me

1. Why these alternative names aren't considered appropriate information for this article and why they cannot be displayed using an infobox line specifically tailored to display such alternative names?
2. Why editors Woodstone and Ckatz are so reluctant to present their reasoning for this?

__meco (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaia and Tellus are not widely accepted as names for this planet among English speakers. They are not significant enough to appear in the lead paragraph, so I see no need to mention them in the infobox. "Terra" is a Latin name which does appear in the lead, but I am not convinced it also needs to be mentioned in the infobox of this English article.

It would be better to provide reasons for your proposed addition, than for anyone to speculate about the objective or motivation of other editors. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that statement is false. "Gaia" is probably more well known than any other name for this planet. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, in senses coming from the name of the Greek goddess, and holistic hypotheses, but is it accepted as a name for the astronomical body? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Like Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus. Earth may be an astronomical body, but that doesn't mean that this page applies solely to astronomers and space science enthusiasts. Like it or not Gaia is used by many English speaking people. I've only heard it called Terra in science fiction, but what I don't know counts for nothing. nagualdesign (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the revision history it appears that I indeed removed those alternate names. It seems that I reverted one edit more than intended. I do not object to the inclusion of those names. −Woodstone (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the concession from Woodstone, and I hope more support presents itself for having all three alternative names for our planet presented, in the article as well as the infobox. __meco (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I support having Gaia in the alt_names (it's well known and ain't just hippie-speak!) and, by extension, Tellus (though I'm not familiar with that). Regarding the discussion of edits, it's pointless getting your hackles up ("Please discuss", "Hey, YOU discuss!" and "attempts to suppress..") Just bite the bullet, as you have done, and 'let dicks be dicks'. You may find that there was actually a simple misunderstanding (case in point: Woodstone). nagualdesign (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or thesaurus. Wiktionary would be the place to list alternative names.--Charles (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Then what is the rationale behind the alt_names parameter in {{Infobox planet}}? Why mention Terra in the opening paragraph? Why provide pronunciations and adjectives for planets (eg, /ˈviːnəs/; Venusian or (rarely) Cytherean, Venerean)? And, for that matter, why provide etymologies for any articles on Wikipedia? Answer: Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Just because a thesaurus provides synonyms, that does not mean that Wikipedia should not mention that the Earth is also known by other names. Perhaps you should actually read WP:NOTDIC. It mentions nothing about avoiding synonyms. nagualdesign (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've added alt_names = [[Terra]], [[Tellus]], [[Gaia]] to the infobox. Terra is already mentioned in the OP (ie, it is a genuine alternative designation), Gaia is particularly well known (see Gaia hypothesis, etc. Also, from New Age Gaian "..our Home World, the Earth, also known as Gaia.") I can't speak for Tellus, apart from to say that just because it is unfamiliar to me does not mean it should not be included. In fact, learning new things is a primary reason for visiting Wikipedia. Please do not revert until you have made your objections known and a consensus is reached. It does no harm to add to the article for the time being (as the alternate names are factual). Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The rationale behind the alt_names parameter in {{Infobox planet}} appears to be accommodating Provisional designation in astronomy. As it now stands, Tellus and Gaia point to disambiguation pages, not the most appropriate links to appear in an infobox. If reliable sourcing can be found, I have no objection to adding these alternate names to the body of the article. Unless and until they can be shown to be widely accepted alternate English names for this planet, I do not believe they have a place in the infobox. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for waiting 1 hour and 18 minutes before reverting. That should have been plenty of time. And in the grand scheme of things meco, Woodstone, Viriditas and I hold much less weight than Charles and yourself, so it makes perfect sense to take this lack of consensus as reason enough to simply push your own agenda. Who needs a discussion when there's the opportunity for an edit war, eh? Nice one Bill. ;-)

Seriously though, I had said "Please do not revert until you have made your objections known and a consensus is reached. It does no harm to add to the article for the time being (as the alternate names are factual)." Did you not understand that or are you deliberately obtuse? There are several pages already on Wikipedia that use the term Gaia. It isn't at all as uncommon as you seem to think. And if you don't like the links (which allow users to easily delve further if they wish to know more) why not simply unlink them instead of removing the whole thing? Also, are you saying that we must prove that the Latin names are actually English?! nagualdesign (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You just know things are FUBAR if meco and I are in agreement. :) Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, that's not true! Satisfied? __meco (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the article stood without alternate names until early last October. As the above discussion shows, we don't yet have consensus for that change, and miles of assertions carry less weight than a few reliable sources, which I have not yet seen presented. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of discussion please drop the combative, fight-your-own-corner approach and try to help us work towards a genuine consensus. For example, a quick Google of alternate names for the earth yields several references to Gaia without even following the links, the top 2 results being Wikipedia pages. So what would be a satisfactory secondary source in this instance? Please don't fold your arms in a huff and say, "The burden of proof is on you!" I can assure you that Gaia is well known, now let's try to work together to see if this can be formulated into an encyclopedic form. Stating that the article stood without alternate names until early last October is irrelevant. And stamping on the brakes is counter-productive. nagualdesign (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Counting Google hits "without even following the links" is not a way to find a reliable source. If you follow that link, you will find that since "Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy[...] Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose."

The article standing without alternate names in the infobox until just over two months ago is relevant because this is a featured article which came to its present state after a lot of work. Changing highly visible parts of a featured article needs extra care.

I don't dispute that Gaia is well-known as a term for certain views of Earth as a self-sustaining whole, along with mythological senses. Its use in fiction and gaming is more evidence of being well-known, but only marginally relevant to an encyclopedia article about a planet.

"Terra" can just as easily disappear from the infobox too. I left it there because of my general sense that it was the most applicable of the three, but without sourcing, perhaps it should be removed as well. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was that the possible sources are so numerous that picking one could be a wild goose chase without some kind of guidance. I'd rather not have to produce an endless list of examples for you to simply pooh-pooh. nagualdesign (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll: should Terra be listed?

Oppose. A science fiction name should not appear in a science article. All adding this name does is lead others to ask why Gaia and Teegeeeack aren't included as well. Serendi^podous 13:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This straw poll is flawed for several reasons and I don't think going through with it will be helpful. __meco (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What secondary sources support the assertion that "Terra" only appears in science fiction? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with meco. This poll strikes me as an arse about tit way of opposing the inclusion of Gaia and Tellus, which you have made no comment on above. And Bill, shouldn't you be questioning whether Terra is a widely accepted alternate English name for this planet, as you have done with Gaia, rather than the other way around? (The current source states that "the term terra is used only for naming extensive land masses on celestial bodies other than the Earth") Demanding that reliable secondary sources are required to approve one name and to disprove another before any changes can be made is a blatant contradiction. nagualdesign (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to include it since it's the Latin name of the planet. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• In the interest of honesty: "terra: [...] 2. Science Fiction. (With capital initial.) The Earth." — OED. Still not a reason to exclude it, IMO. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. My paper copy of the OED does not include that, being limited to senses related to "dirt," such as terra alba (pipeclay) or terra cariosa (tripoli or rottenstone). __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, does etymonline.com count as a reputable source? I don't have access to the OED, but most online dictionaries conclude their entry for Gaia with ..from Greek gaia, meaning "earth" (note the lower-case, I assume that means soil/dirt) but don't explain further, so I looked for an etymology. But then again, an etymology says nothing about a how well known/used a word is. Google Ngram Viewer says something about it's usage, but nothing like used in English poetically or rhetorically for "Earth personified" or "the Earth as a planet." nagualdesign (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OED: "Gaia, n. The global ecosystem, understood to function in the manner of a vast self-regulating organism, in the context of which all living things collectively define and maintain the conditions conducive to life on earth; (also) the theory which proposes this." That's the only definition it gives, so it claims it's the ecosystem as opposed to the planet per se [in English at least]. Though the derivation cites the Greek goddess of course. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cybercobra. I guess the real question then is, is (an article about) Earth necessarily (an article about) an ecosystem, or are the 2 topics divisible? The modern Gaia theory includes all of the Earth's inorganic processes, as well as lifeforms, in it's desciption of 'the living Earth'. I don't think that you could point out one component of the Earth and say, "That bit's Gaia." The whole planet is referred to as Gaia (without wishing to personify it, of course). nagualdesign (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole planet for all time? The physical assembly of the Earth and the begining of planet wide ecosystems are clearly seperate events that happened at different times, so Gaia mysticism can be seperated from the physical reality of Earth on this temporal distinction. If ecosystems were to end on Earth the Earth would still exist provided they were not anihilated at the same time. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 20:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair comment, but it hasn't always been a 'Blue Planet' either. When talking about what something is called we're usually refering to what people call it now. Having thought about it, perhaps none of these names should be in the infobox - being as it is entirely concerned with orbital variables and other (only) astronomical data - but I still think that they should be mentioned in the article body. Perhaps somewhere among the contents of the Cultural viewpoint section. (Which itself needs some work, IMO. It's first paragraph leaps from Earth's etymology to it's astronomical symbol. The second is about various faiths but begins with a disjointed sentence. And the last paragraph ranges from a flat Earth to spaceflight to the environmental movement.) nagualdesign (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding it to the Cultural viewpoint would be ok by me. The problem with having these terms in the main infobox or lead paragraph is that it assumes equivalency or interchangeability of these seperate concepts with "Earth." SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 19:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2012

24.54.199.226 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Earth Shape

Mt. Chimborazo is listed as the furthest place on land from the center of the Earth. No problem. But in the caption under the photo it is listed as the closest point on land to out space. It is my understanding that this is an incorrect statement. Does the Atmosphere not follow the rules of gravity and does it not also bulge outward at the Equator. In other words the atmosphere should be an elliptoid as well as the land. Thus the closest point to outer space is still Mt. Everest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.119.242 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with that logic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Change the caption to not refer to outer space (might need a new reference, the existing one doesn't consider these subtleties). Your point raises the question of how much does the shape of the atmosphere conform to the shape of the surface (or reference spheroid). The atmosphere is much more fluid so its equilibrium shape ought to be quite variable. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 07:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

New Earth Picture

Could this picture be added or does it need a better source? This is a picture of the Earth whole, from what I read. http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/6760135001/in/photostream/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.149.7 (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

North America looks gigantic in this pic, like it is distorted from its true size (compared to Google Earth perspective). Any way I don't think we should discard the blue marble pic in any case, include both if necessary. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 20:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My problem with it is that it is a composite, as all modern "Blue Marbles" have to be. I prefer an actual photograph. Serendi^podous 20:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support keeping the photo, or at least an image including clouds. Clouds are part of the earth and should thus be included in the main illustration of the planet. We wouldn't use a reconstructed image of Venus's surface in the main image for that article. The Blue Marble images are pretty, but they are not what the planet looks like. It has also been argued before that this is an iconic image of earth, widely used and recognized, and that it, in particular, should be kept for that reason. I don't have strong feelings about that, but I do think the image should be a real photo (i.e. a snapshot in time, with clouds), and there are not too many other similar snapshots showing a full hemisphere at this time. StephenHudson (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Human

Corrected the term "humans" to "human beings." Human is an adjective, not a noun TheKurgan (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And I've undone that (you signed your change there also), please read Human. Vsmith (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

TheKurgan (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)I did read Human. 450 years of being incorrect doesn't make it right, even if it is "acceptable...:)" I'll leave it, though, and pick my battles elsewhere.

New Blue Marble

I just added an updated version of NASA's "Blue Marble" photo and it was reverted with the summary "no consensus for a new image." While it is true that there is no consensus for a new image, this is true of any new edit as consensus cannot exist for something that didn't exist previously. In other words, "no consensus" isn't really a reason to revert since technically that would apply to any edit ever made. What is your actual objection to the updated version? It's a similar photo but much higher resolution and the only real difference is the landmass being photographed.

Secondly, I'm not familiar with how to resize images and although this image is a perfect square it appears to be skewed for some reason, I'm guessing because of the large size. I used "300px" in my image code but it needs to be something like 300x200, is this possible to do? I couldn't figure it out by reading WP:IMAGE. Help is appreciated on that matter! N^oformation ^Talk 20:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It might pay you to read the talk page and previous edit summaries, this image has been added and reverted once already this week. Also look up FAQ at top of this page for explanation as to why current image is used. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 20:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! – IVAN3MAN (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The original Blue Marble picture is iconic and in my opinion (and those of many others) it is a perfect representation of Earth. The various landscapes, wispy white clouds, and deep blue oceans are all displayed perfectly in that breathtaking photo. There is no use in replacing it with a less familiar image when this one more than adequately represents Earth. Cadiomals (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the spoken version

The spoken version of this article is NOT computer generated. That is my voice. Marmenta (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was my mistake :( -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Circumnavigation

What's the record for the fastest circumnavigation of Earth by plane? And how long is such distance? MarcowyGnom (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made a slight edit to List of circumnavigations. Serendi^podous 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)