Talk:Earth

Does this article still meet FA requirements?

I think the article doesn't really meet the FA requirements anymore. A list of issues:

• Too much of the article is too difficult (not well-written). This article should be understandable to a 16-year old. Yes, I'm struggling as a physics graduate.
  • the very first paragraph is too difficult. Per WP:ONEDOWN, words like sidereal day should definitely be avoided.
  • Further examples of things that may be too difficult include sentences like: . At the equator of the magnetic field, the magnetic-field strength at the surface is 3.05×10−5 T, with a magnetic dipole moment of 7.79×1022 Am2 at epoch 2000, decreasing nearly 6% per century
  • No idea what mean solar time is meant to be.

• Many of the key facts are outdated (not well-researched):
  • for instance, the article now states that the oldest material ever found in the solar system is 4.56 BYA, while a 2010 study found an older piece: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/8/100823-oldest-solar-system-two-million-years-older-science/. Dunno if that is the oldest one still.
  • Future section is full of research that has specific years and often based on one old primary source.
  • The final brightness of our Sun (5000 times as bright) is referenced to 1993 article. Still up-to-date?
  • Human population in 2050 is estimated using 2009 UN numbers
  • The amount of irrigated land is given for 1993

• Quite some unsourced paragraphs (not well-researched)

• I don't think individual weather events are due (summary style). The article now mentions a very controversial heat record, without giving context but it's likely an artefact of poor measuring. I think both temperature records should be deleted.

It would be lovely if we can keep this important article FA. I may bring it to FAR, but hope to find some people interested in improving it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any of these prose issues. The article is quite easy to understand. Where does this 16-year-old rule come from? Graham Beards (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Graham Beards, thanks for your reaction. The 16-year old 'rule' is my interpretation of WP:ONEDOWN, from the WP:Make technical articles understandable guideline. This is a very basic article, and will definitely be studied by 18 year olds, so the best way to make sure they understand it, is to write it for an even younger audience. I feel this article has a very variable difficulty, and certainly has sections that are very easy to understand as well. Further examples of things I did not understand are:

• This causes secular variation of the main field
• Charged particles are contained within the magnetosphere; the plasmasphere is defined by low-energy particles that essentially follow magnetic field lines as Earth rotates;[172][173] the ring current is defined by medium-energy particles that drift relative to the geomagnetic field, but with paths that are still dominated by the magnetic field,[174] and the Van Allen radiation belt are formed by high-energy particles whose motion is essentially random, but otherwise contained by the magnetosphere.[170][175]. The sentence should be split in two, and maybe there is some grammar error in the penultimate clause.
• Earth's rotation period relative to the precessing or moving mean March equinox, misnamed its sidereal day, is 86,164.0905 seconds of mean solar time (UT1) (23h 56m 4.0905s). Why is it misnamed, what is the March equinox (took some thinking that this is the global name for spring equinox), why is earth rotation period measured relative to the equinox, why is UT1 relevant? Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I shall fix that right now. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. Sorry, my time for education is coming. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – I have initiated the formal FAR to fix the problems raised by this discussion. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – For unambiguous meaning, data specification is essential. In areas dealing with astronomical information differentiation between sidereal and solar time is necessary for accurate data. Similar issue with the complaint about magnetic-field data. Without these specifications, such data becomes unusable. Note that the introduction section is reasonably simplified and deeper data (and terms) are limited to other sections. A mix of higher and lower-level info makes the page useful to a broader audience. (REQUEST:) I would like to see all usages of less-known terms linked to their related wiki articles, but do not know how to do so. Finally, the concern with obsolete and/or inaccurate is valid. See separate entry below OldDadOfFive (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

Snoopy424 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

xyxyxylibby is bae

 Not done please make clear what you want changed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September, 2020

Would it be possible to add demoynms for the planet? Such as Earthling, Terran, and such. H.J. Fleischmann (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Fleischmann

@H.J. Fleishcmann: we already have an article on that topic: Earthling, which includes the other demonyms. I added a link to it in the "See also" section in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Zircon and keeping the article simple

A request to keep the article easy to understand, so that geology n00bs as me can still understand it :). My association with the word zircon are these fictional creatures: https://aliens.fandom.com/wiki/Zirkonian. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added that they are minerals. I'm not always the best at avoiding technical language, but I'll see what I can do. Mikenorton (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Problems with Physical data

First discovered when discrepancies were noticed in the specification of mass (of Earth). It is listed in the first sidebar under "Physical characteristics" as 5.97237×1024 kg. (cited) (and approximated under Chemical composition). However the "Earth Mass" article says 5.9722×1024 kg (cited) and the "Earth physical characteristics tables" article says 5.98x1024 kg. (no citation?) There is a similar discrepancy between the mass of the moon listed in the moon section as 7.349×1022 kg (no citation?) and in the "Moon" article as 7.342×1022 kg (cited) I am sure there are many more examples in physical (and other?) data. As the cited external sources also vary, this should not be a serious problem. However, it seems like Wikipedia should be more consistent, either by consolidating all values and citations, or by mentioning the variance and citing multiple variant sources. As I am new to wiki "corrections" I will understand if this post is deemed not-up-to-standards. OldDadOfFive (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldDadOfFive (talk • contribs) 00:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It Seems like your concerns about the article. Can be addressed your post seems up to standards, its a valid concern what you brought up.Plunging Bear (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Structure of article

I've been playing with the structure of the article, breaking out the atmosphere and the hydrosphere, based on the emphasis other overview sources give the atmosphere and to a lesser extent the hydrosphere. I'm not yet satisfied with the structure of the article though, especially how we describe the human influence on the earth. Problems I have with the current structure:

1. the section on human geography is a bit weird: the section heading is the name of a scientific discipline, and I'm not sure how the relevance of each paragraph was determined. Maybe this entire section would fit better in our article about world, with a summary under the section about habitability.
   • Specifically, the text about states and the UN seems undue, as well as the most northernmost and southernmost settlement
   • similarly, the spacefaring of individual humans is probably a better fit for our world article.
2. For the sake of making the article easier, the section habitability could be renamed life on earth.
3. Both the surface subsection and the human geography section talk about agriculture. Should we choose?
4. Both the shape and the surface subsection write about extreme points. I feel that this belongs to shape, right?
5. I'm not in the humanities, so I find it difficult to assess the last section. Does it belong?

I'm using the following overview sources to trying get a grip on these questions:

• https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/earth/
• https://www.livescience.com/earth.html
• Earth -- Evolution of a habitable world (2013) Jonathan Irving Lunine
• Earth Science] Mark Hendrix

Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

As someone who has absolutely no experience in the area, the third paragraph of the last section seems very Eurocentric. Surely cultures other than the Ancient Greeks contributed to advances in Astronomy? Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right there, as somebody else has absolutely no experience in the area. I also noticed that the sources are a bit more outdated than ideal as well. Do you think it belongs in the article? The 2013 book I have does talk about it, but the 2020 book doesn't... As a start we can condense the material that is there, so that it conforms to summary style. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I've asked for some help at the WikiProject history of science. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2020

Because I see the other words already linked, I suggest also linking the word Globe in this line:

| alt_names  = [[Gaia hypothesis|Gaia]], [[Gaia|Gaea]], [[wikt:Terra|Terra]], [[Terra (mythology)|Tellus]], the [[World]], the [[Globe]]

84.147.37.115 (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)\\\\

 Done MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleting some notes from article, preserving for if anyone wants to integrate

The modern English word Earth developed, via Middle English, from an Old English noun most often spelled eorðe. It has cognates in every Germanic language, and their ancestral root has been reconstructed as *erþō. In its earliest attestation, the word eorðe was already being used to translate the many senses of Latin terra and Greek γῆ gē: the ground, its soil, dry land, the human world, the surface of the world (including the sea), and the globe itself. As with Roman Terra/Tellūs and Greek Gaia, Earth may have been a personified goddess in Germanic paganism: late Norse mythology included Jörð ('Earth'), a giantess often given as the mother of Thor.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Notes

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

I believe the word 'eyes' should be 'ice'.

For context, the two sentences in 'Hydrosphere' are In Earth's coldest regions, snow survives over the summer and changes into ice. This accumulated snow and eyes eventually forms into glaciers, bodies of ice that flow under the influence of their own gravity. Maknutson (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I've made that change - thanks for pointing it out. Mikenorton (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

"the Earth", or just "Earth" ?

For hundreds of years in the English language, the planet Earth, unlike the other planets, has been traditionally and commonly referred to as "the Earth". But today, our planet is now very widely expressed also, simply and logically as "Earth", because the inclusion of "the" with Earth is illogically inconsistent if used for other planets, as in this sentence example- "It is a fact that Earth and the Mars are both planets." Of course, anyone could immediately realize that "the Mars" in that sentence is wrong, because it is illogically inconsistent. But the Traditionalist will continually defend this inconsistency with these two endlessly circular 'reasons'- 1. TRADITION: Using the phrase "the Earth" is still traditionally used, and thus correct! 2. COMMON USE: Using the phrase "the Earth" is still in common use, and thus correct!

Is there anyone here on WIKIPEDIA, after reading the above, that still does NOT understand the illogical inconsistency of the phrase "the Earth"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuuur333999 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If language use was governed only by logic, it would make all our lives easier. Having said that, "the Earth" only turns up three times in the article outside references to other WP articles, a discussion on Etymology, in compound words such as "the Earth-Moon system" and in citations (75% of the usage in the article). I'll change the three for consistency, although I personally use "the Earth" all the time and as the citations show it is in common use and that is a valid argument here, whatever you may think. Mikenorton (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see no difference between the names 950CMR (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The word Earth traces etymologically "die Erde" in German, from which the Old English word for Earth is also (probably)devolved. German uses definite articles on all planets, so Mar is "der Mars" which is literally the (masc.) Mars. Every mention of the name of a planet is preceded by "the" in German. Obviously this isn't the convention in English but it is worth nothing that "Earth" is a proper name so there's a linguistic reason to use both "Earth" and "the Earth" in modern English. The convention seems to be to use "the Earth" when referring to it for the first time in writing and then as "Earth" thereafter. (Adamopoulos) 1:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As a german native speaker I can only point out that in german its though not wrong to use an article even if you want to say e.g. "on Emily", then you would mostly say "on the Emily". So german doesnt help us. I think the argument stems from similar discussions like "the moon" or "the Moon", which is more complicated because moon can be any moon. But it gives more clearity why there is still a "the" with Earth.

Imho I think "the" is used if you cant make it otherwise clear that you mean Earth, and not any earth, as in soil, when for example speaking you cant show that you mean the capital letter Earth; like in the case of the Moon, where its as I said still not established that there are moons and the Moon, so saying "on Moon" feels still very odd, even though knowing that it means on the place called Moon. So my verdict is: since its a name and Wikipedia is textbased, "Earth" without "the" is correct. Earth is established enough to just use it like that, unlike sadly Moon. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Adjectives issue

Earlier I made a edit adding Earthling to the adjective used to describe people from Earth and it was immediately reverted because it was claimed by Mikenorton that it was not a Adjective. My question is how is the use of earthly, terrestrial, terran, tellurian a Adjective while Earthlings are not? Earthy isn’t even used to describe inhabitants who live on earth but rather characteristic of quality’s of people who are from or associated with earth. Earthlings on the other hand is the main description used for people from earth and has been used as such since 1590. If you don’t believe look at the Wikipedia article describing Earthlings BigRed606 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I was pointing out that the other adjectives refer to the Earth itself rather than the Earth's inhabitants. Mikenorton (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So the adjective are other descriptions to describe earth? So then why Mikenorton is the adjective for Mars martians which describe people, (even though life has not been found on Mars), from Mars.BigRed606 (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The adjective for Mars is Martian (without the s) which is still referring to the planetary body. I.e. the Martian landscape. While Martian/Martians can also refer to hypothetical inhabits it is not used in that context on the Mars wiki. Adjectives on planetary body pages are specifically referring to the planetary body itself, and not inhabitants (hypothetical or known). Hope that clears it up. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Temperature spelled tempearture

Hi,

I'm not sure how Wikipedia's system works, but on the Earth page, under Chronology, under Future, temperature is erroneously spelled tempearture in the sentence "Earth's mean tempearture may reach 100 °C (212 °F) in 1.5 billion years, and all ocean water will evaporate and be lost to space within an estimated 1.6 to 3 billion years.[83]"

76.188.161.99 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I've corrected it. Normally, you'd be able to correct this yourself, but because there used to be a lot of vandalism on this article, only users with an account of at least a few days old can edit. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Chemical composition of the crust table

Hello,

I was just looking at the table in Earth § Chemical composition and was wondering why it has a total of 100.1% for Continental Composition. Also, the Oceanic Composition values appear to sum to 96.5% instead of 99.9%—which is stated. Please, double-check me on this. If I am missing something obvious please let me know but I would appreciate a conversation or explanation about this.

Thanks, ritenerek⋆:) 20:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

100.1% can be a rounding error, 96.5% must be an error. Can you be bold and correct it? FemkeMilene (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

FemkeMilene Sure thing (revision 1011607563). I suppose the 100.1% just looks quite odd to me. ritenerek⋆:) 20:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What's really odd is that I can't find the values used in the table in the cited source. Table 7 from White & Klein does give the composition of bulk oceanic crust, but the values don't match. On looking further, it seems that the citation changed a few years ago but the values didn't - I'll update it. Mikenorton (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Mikenorton, good catch! ritenerek⋆:) 09:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Earth-Semitic Etymological Root

Reading wikipedia's page here explaining the etymological source of the word: Earth made VERY LITTLE to NO sense to me!

No one has offered the PHONETICALLY VERY CLOSELY-RELATED Arabic (& Hebrew) words to this word. In Arabic, the word for Earth sounds CLOSEST to the English word & is pronounced: Arth (with the final 'th' pronounced (rather HEAVILY!), as the 'th' in the demonstrative pronoun: 'this' (with the following spelling: ارض). Hebrew's (closely-related) version of this word is the word for land, pronounced: E're'ts (with the spelling of: ארץ)! MUCH MORE SENSICAL (in sound & probably, ALSO, in terms of historical-evolution of a language through worldwide trade routes & the migration of people from certain regions or areas-respectively,to others, thereby directly impacting the linguistic evolution (by a process of one language sharing certain words with another &/or inspiring another in the creation of new words &/or their change/"improvement").

AK63 (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)