Talk:Earth
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Earth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
![]() | Humorous references to Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy are inappropriate content for this article. |
![]() | Complaints about the lack of young Earth creationism or similar points of view are inappropriate content for this talk page. For an overview of Wikipedia's position on creationism or young Earth-related topics, please see the FAQ at Talk:Evolution. |
![]() | Earth is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Earth is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2010. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Earth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
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.
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. Serendipodous 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
reference plane?
What is the reference plane for Earth's orbital elements given in the article? --Jonah.ru (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The first section has a mistake.
"The Earth's axis of rotation is tilted 23.4°" This is incorrect. The actual tilt of Earth's axis of rotation is 23.5 degrees. http://science.jrank.org/pages/1304/Celestial-Sphere-Apparent-Motions-Sun-Moon-Planets-Stars.html -"Earth's axis is tilted approximately 23.5 degrees" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_(astronomy) -"Earth's...axis of rotation is inclined by about 23.5 degrees from the perpendicular (as compared to its orbital plane)" http://www.esse.ou.edu/fund_concepts/Fundamental_Concepts1/Solar_System/Earths_Rotation.htm -"Earth's rotation axis is currently tilted at ~23.5° with respect to the ecliptic axis," http://www.enotes.com/polar-axis-tilt-reference/polar-axis-tilt -"Earth's axis is tilted approximately 23.5 degrees to the plane of the ecliptic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin R. Lurie (talk • contribs) 01:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Internal Structure of the Earth
This section states as facts some very contested hypothesis. As recently as 2000, the very core of the earth was still "anybody's guess" according the group of geophysicists I had interviewed at that time. Since our primary method of looking at the earth's core is by measuring earthquakes, we really ought to tone down the definitive language of this section. Also, reference 74, linked from the words "inner core" has nothing to do with the inner core, but the crust thickness variations of the different continents.
Let's clean up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.154 (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have sources for any of this? You should, if you interviewed them. We'll need that before any changes can be made. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Discrepancy in the Infobox
Now I'm sorry if this has already been addressed, or perhaps my math is simply off. But I believe that the earth's volume in the infobox is not at all correct. It's listed as 1.80321 x 1012 but I think it should be 1.80321 x 1018. I'll put all of my math down below just so you can check my work.
It's listed as 1.08321 x 1012 cubic kilometers which would make the density (mass/volume) 5.97 x 1024 kg/ 1.08321 x 1012 cubic km.Which is 5511396682083.8 kg/cubic km. Since no one measures in kg/cubic km you start by changing the volume from cubic km to cubic m by multiplying by 1 x 103 or 1000. and that gives you 5.97 x 1024 kg/ 1.08321 x 1015 which is 5511396682.0838 kg/cubic meter, if you convert that to g/ccm (cubic centimeter) it's 5511396.6820. That's 10-6 g/ccm off from what the earth's density should be. Which is quite a lot. So if you multiply 1.08321 x 1012 by 1 x 106 you'll get 1.08321 x 1018. Which if you then redo all of the math comes out to a much more reasonable 5511.3967 kg/cubic meter, or 5.5114 g/ccm which is slightly off from the mean density listed in the infobox due to rounding error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henwood91 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- cubic kilometer = 109 cubic meters Jonah.ru (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why are we even using kilometers in the infoboxes when we have perfectly good SI unit prefixes? Convert it to cubic gigameters. Zlynx (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
moon
the moon section of the earth article includes this text---
Some theorists think that without this stabilization against the torques applied by the Sun and planets to the Earth's equatorial bulge, the rotational axis might be chaotically unstable, exhibiting chaotic changes over millions of years, as appears to be the case for Mars.[149]
is this really accurate---at least as far as the reference to Mars is concerned? I can't find any reference to it in the Mars article, for example.
H870rce (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Imperial
Should we not add imperial units (i.e. miles – say, in brackets?) to the 'physical parameters" section of the infobox? I am not proposing we do this for every celestial body, but since there are roundabout 300 million Americans in existence, most of whom live on the Earth (!), many of whom doubtles read the English Wikipedia, it might be useful for them to be able to easily see the dimensions of the planet they live on without having to specifically go away in order to convert the data. whatthinksyou? :-) BigSteve (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think that we could definitely do that, at least in parenthesis. For people who even know what an imperial unit is. I think that is a great idea. We will see what other people think. Karicats7 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Statute (survey) miles, international miles, nautical miles, or two-thousand-yard "sea miles?" The infobox is bulky enough as it is; if other units are to be added, it should only be for a very few selected parameters. I'm not too enthusiastic about the idea. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is a scientific article. My understanding is that metric units are mostly used in science teaching even in the USA. Let's stick to metric. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Considering we're talking about Earthly distances, and a significant portion of English speakers normally use (5280-foot) miles for such distances, I think a reasonable argument can be made for making an exception. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is a scientific article. My understanding is that metric units are mostly used in science teaching even in the USA. Let's stick to metric. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed numerous times here and on other astronomy pages, and the consensus is to use SI. I'll see if I can dig up the relevant discussions. --Ckatzchatspy 05:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't the point here that Earth is arguably worth special-casing? I don't see anyone arguing here for inclusion of Imperial on other astronomy articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Any planet with a few hundred million inhabitants demonstrably using Imperial units should also have them available in the article for ease of comprehension by the residents of that planet. - Dravecky (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- O, and while you are at it why not include the Burmese measures too, another country strong on exceptionalism. SkyMachine (++) 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Don't forget Libya. It's THE other country which hasn't metricated. It's not the earth that's a special case, it's the USA and its two friends. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thankfully, this is English Wikipedia, so we are not unjustified in overlooking Burmese and Libyan units, unless they plan to add English as an official language. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so it's just the USA that's a special case. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thankfully, this is English Wikipedia, so we are not unjustified in overlooking Burmese and Libyan units, unless they plan to add English as an official language. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Don't forget Libya. It's THE other country which hasn't metricated. It's not the earth that's a special case, it's the USA and its two friends. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- O, and while you are at it why not include the Burmese measures too, another country strong on exceptionalism. SkyMachine (++) 22:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Putting aside Ignore all rules for now, are there any policy positions that would apply here for the support of including imperial units? Can you make a case there? SkyMachine (++) 09:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Any planet with a few hundred million inhabitants demonstrably using Imperial units should also have them available in the article for ease of comprehension by the residents of that planet. - Dravecky (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
In "Habitability" section: wrong word
The word is "climatic", not "climactic", in reference to the climate of Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaineSteve (talk • contribs) 03:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing. I've fixed it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Error
The article says the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It's only 6,000 years old. If you want proof, read the Bible. Please change it, thank you.
- Wikipedia featured articles
- FA-Class Featured topics articles
- Wikipedia featured topics Solar System featured content
- High-importance Featured topics articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class Astronomy articles
- Top-importance Astronomy articles
- FA-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
- FA-Class Astronomical objects articles
- Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
- Unassessed Astronomy articles
- Unknown-importance Astronomy articles
- Unassessed Astronomy articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Solar System articles
- Unknown-importance Solar System articles
- Solar System task force
- FA-Class Geology articles
- Top-importance Geology articles
- Top-importance FA-Class Geology articles
- WikiProject Geology articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates