Talk:Earth

Other data

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.

Reader feedback: more about population

82.219.30.93 posted this comment on 21 November 2013 (view all feedback).

more about population

Any thoughts?

JayDugger (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

See the article History of the world for specifics of human population on Earth.

Orbital Elements Incorrect?

The orbital elements listed at the top of the page do not agree with JPL Horizons data, as far as I can tell. http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

The elements also do not agree with Vallado's Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications Table D-3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.217 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are explanatory "notes" with which we can disagree. Then there are footnoted WP:RS. We probably need to go with one set of values. If one set is wrong, we need to determine why here. I don't know about a textbook. Values are always changing, the moon is drifting out. the earth accumulates mass, I guess earth is slowing down and moving sunward. So the figures will always "drift," right? Not crucial unless way off in value. Student7 (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that someone has copied values from sources without really knowing what they mean. Inclination and longitude of ascending node describe the orientation of the orbital plane in relation to some other reference plane. The reference plane is crucial, with different planes of reference you get completely different numerical values. And argument of periapsis is measured in relation to the ascending node (see the picture on Orbital inclination page), so it too depends heavily on the reference plane.

Currently on the table, for inclination there are two different values, with notes on what reference plane they are in relation to, that's all well and good. For longitude of ascending node and argument of periapsis there's a single value for each, and no note what plane these are in relation to. This in itself is bad as the reader has no way of telling which one of the previously mentioned reference planes is intended here. But it gets worse. The source where those values were taken from actually uses a reference plane that is neither of the two reference planes used for inclination. So these two values, as they are on the page now, are actually completely meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.157.215 (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much should be First Point of Aries, right? Could we focus on a single value, for discussion purposes? A bit easier than trying to resolve the whole set at once, some of which may not require resolving. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2013

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 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)

Infobox photo should be a natural photograph

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!