![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I'd like to see what would be the opinion on modifications to Human Geography section. The current map causes technical problems - one link on top of the other and enlargement of the width of the article. Also, countries are mentioned but not the continents. Another Wikipedia ( mechanical translation here, "Geography") utilizes the use of clickable map with links to Commons Atlas, while wikilinks to continents are provided within the paragraph. Would that idea work?-- Adi ( talk) 22:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The new map looks fine, and thank you for putting that together. It may make sense to put it in a template for maintenance and re-use. 'Template:Continents' is already taken, so perhaps a name like 'Template:Continents navmap' or 'Template:Earth continents' would work?— RJH ( talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it true that the gravitational pull of the sun and moon causes the earths orbit of the sun and the earths rotation to slow down ever so slightly. if it is would it be worth adding to the article. Mr Deathbat ( talk) 10:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The image in the infobox is not the original Blue Marble from Apollo 17 as the caption claims, it's a home-made gif based on a 2001 retake. For reference, File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg is the original, while File:Rotating earth (large).gif (according to its descripton page) is based on on this NASA image (external link). Disregard that, judging from User talk:South Bay, it was apparently a nonsense . 78.34.155.161 ( talk) 11:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist", this does not really have other possible points of view from other planets in mind, as there are probably most definitely other planets with life and I'm sure they know they exist. This should be changed to show that currently to human beings its the only place known to have life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.138.53 ( talk) 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. We've been discussing here whether it should be "Earth" (as in this article) or "earth" (as the MOS implies here). Apologies if this has already been discussed but I would appreciate some of your thoughts. -- John ( talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
* Sun, earth, and moon are not capitalized when used generally: The sun was peeking over the mountain top. They are proper nouns and capitalized when personified: Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god. and in an astronomical context when referring to specific celestial bodies (our Solar System, Sun, Earth, and Moon): The Moon orbits the Earth, but Io is a moon of Jupiter.
The Associated Press observes the lowercase practice world-wide whenever mentioning of the earth, moon, or sun when writing something like this: For civilian night-vision goggles to work effectively, the moon must be above the horizon. Their practice is compliant with the general grammar rule encapsulated at Grammar.ccc.comment.edu, which states as follows:
• [Do capitalize] Names of celestial bodies: Mars, Saturn, the Milky Way. Do not, howver, capitalize earth, moon, sun, except when those names appear in a context in which other (capitalized) celestial bodies are mentioned. "I like it here on earth," but "It is further from Earth to Mars than it is from Mercury to the Sun.
Since the Earth article is a scientific article, and specifically in an astronomical context, it seems well justified to always capitalize Earth, Sun, and Moon in this article. My personal opinion on the matter is if Earth is being talked about in any scientific manner, it should be capitalized. I can see not capitalizing the sun and the moon in casual sentences, such as "The sun is hot today," or "There is a full moon tonight."
Actually, those sentences led me to the full moon and Full Moon articles. Seems a bit odd those are two separate articles, and "moon" is alternated from lowercase to capital on the full moon article. Anyway, that's just an example I stumbled across just now that proves the ambiguity of this question. By the way, I wouldn't use a really old reference book for comparisons. I don't know for sure but I'd bet it's become more common to capitalize these terms in scientific contexts, and always writing them in lowercase is outdated. LonelyMarble ( talk) 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
does anyone think that the world human population should be included in the infobox? surely that is at least as important to most people reading this article as some of the other figures already there? Jessi1989 ( talk) 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
All the planets in the solar system use Latin names, except Earth. I realize this is because the IAU has no official scientific name for our dear planet, but as far as I know, IAU doesn't have a scientific name for our moon either. Checking the Moon article it reads "The Moon (Latin: Luna)" at the beginning of the article. A similar thing for the Sun, "The Sun (Latin: Sol)".
I am a bit puzzled why there is nothing similar to this for the Earth. In school I remember being taught the latin name for the Earth was Tellus, and I know some people use Terra (from Terra Mater). Shouldn't we at least mention this in the article, instead of simply stating "It is also referred to as the World and Terra."
How about: "Earth (Latin: Tellus/Terra) ..."
Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skela ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
As it is now, the "Designations" section seems rather empty, there's only some rubbish about Adjectives used. Do you have any arguments against it besides personal taste? Skela ( talk) 20:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This may sound obvious, but I think there should be a section dedicated to the etymology of the word "Earth". I have absolutely no idea how it came into place. If I find info, I'll definitely add it. obento musubi 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The number for the surface area used doesn't seem mathematically correct, using the formula for the surface area of a sphere will give a number in the region of 10^14 meters squared where the number here is 10^11. I actually think that the number from the cia world book might be a typo and the period is supposed to be a comma, also looking for an online reference will usually lead back to hear making the reference circular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.171.165 ( talk) 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
oops my bad, did a very silly mistake when changing from meters squared to kilometers squared, thought something was odd about the whole matter. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.44.85.47 (
talk)
21:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
earth is the only living planet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.182.137 ( talk) 08:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The article starts sentences by saying "Earth is" as opposed to "the Earth is". Is that correct? Makewater ( talk) 20:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you please add Template:Physical Earth. I am a newbie user and I can't edit this article. Thanks.
-- BSATwinTowers ( talk) 10:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
In my physics book it says it's about 1.496*10^11m, I wonder if it would be a good idea to include this. btw, I'm using the seventh edition of physics for scientists and engineers with modern physics by serway/jewett (for sourcing purposes if anyone needs it). -- Dguenther - DGun ( talk) 10:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to compare the temperatures of the different inner planets looking at their wikipedia articles. Strangely earth of all articles doesn't seem to have this data I found on a NASA website that it's .04 degrees Celsius. I think this should be added to the climate section It seems like an important and basic fact of a planet. The article is locked however so I could not add it myself. A side note I really don't like the fact that the article on the earth itself is locked, please reconsider this.
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#GlobalTemperature
-Doug 68.25.20.16 ( talk) 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Is "blue planet" a logical name for Earth?? I think it more logically fits Neptune. Georgia guy ( talk) 23:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Gaia be in the list too? Where did Tellurian come from? I've only ever heard this planet being called Earth, the World, Terra, and Gaia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.184.220 ( talk) 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Earth's Greek name is Gaea which us married to Uranus.She is the mother of land formations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melzy2022 ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this file restricted for use only on this article? -- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 19:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this sentence in the lead:
Does it make sense to say Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist? In the context of discussing life on other planets, it strikes me as a little arrogant, as if humans not knowing of any other life is equivalent to other life not being known to exist. I mean, the existence of any other self-aware being (of which we are discussing the possibility of), whether they themselves are aware of life on other planets, is enough to contradict the sentence. Of course, in any other context (like the discussion of a mathematical conjecture) it must be assumed we're talking about humans' understanding (it is not known if conjecture A is true or not, as opposed to humans don't know ..). We also send out a lot of stuff into space, no doubt some of it living, so does that contradict the sentence too? As you roll your eyes and ask if I'm being serious, rest assured I agree that I'm being very picky, and even feel a little foolish bringing it up. Still, I think the sentence could be worded a little more correctly, if only to avoid the issue than try and deal with the issues I've brought up. Ben ( talk) 10:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This article states that "Earth has at least two co-orbital asteroids, 3753 Cruithne and 2002 AA29.". The Quasi-satellite article states that "Earth currently has four known quasi-satellites: 3753 Cruithne, 2002 AA29, 2003 YN107, and 2004 GU9.". -- 93.167.94.18 ( talk) 23:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Doesnt the earth actually have 5 moons now? Shouldnt this be added?
there are now: The Moon, Cruithne, 2000ph5, 2000wn10, 2002aa29.
Bizzehdee ( talk) 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
shouldn't this be "only example currently known to man" as the current statement - taken literaly - would mean that no other planet harbours life in the entire universe. my proposition would be more accurate. user: XM8 Carbine (my log in memmery isn't working) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.136.236 ( talk) 07:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we sould add a clear qualifier that puts both of these statments in to context i.e. that us and the Earth are the only examples we have of life and therefore the 'habitability' of any part of the universe is completely and arbitarily defined by the sample size of N=1. We could add such a clause as (as we currently know it, which is based on a sample size of N=1, is limited by our current observations and is therefore a completely arbitrary definition). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amore proprio ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
At present, only the circumference of 1 paralell is mentioned; can a list be given for how large the other paralells are ? (eg the parallell on the at 70° N/S is much shorter than the 0° parallell)
In addition, the parallells arent really the east-west equivalents of the meridian's: the parallells run parallell to each other (no intersection), while the meridians run towards 1 central point (Northpole, Southpole) and intersect there. What exactly is the true equivalent of the meridians, and what are the equivalents of the paralells (thus lines running paralell from the north/southpole, and not towards it).
Also, shouldn't the ecliptic meridians and their equivalents be used on maps (I'm guessing the "top" of the earth isn't actually the north pole, but rather the area more left towards the 70° parallell is. See File:AxialTiltObliquity.png .
If the proposed parallells and their equivalents don't yet exist, they need to be drawn on a new image and shown in the earth article (and modifications need to be made at Circle of latitude and Meridians
KVDP ( talk) 09:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently the article includes the following statement:
This result is based upon the Bounama et al. (2001) paper, which uses a geophysical model that posits 27% of the current ocean mass will be subducted within the next billion years. In 2006, however, there was a news story:
that states:
Those rates don't seem compatible. Is that because the continents are larger now and there is much higher rate of subduction? But even that wouldn't seem to account for the difference.— RJH ( talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that all the other planets have Latin names, is then "Terra" not the correct name for this planet? And thus "Terran" as the posessive? RadicalOne ( talk) 02:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that "terra" even belongs in the lead, given that the only note that links to it simply informs the reader that the IAU does not recognise the term as a name for the Earth. Serendi pod ous 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The section Future seems to me to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This might seem at odds with science which clearly can make prediction on the fate of the sun. However: I wish to interpret the policy so that, when modelling and guessing the future of Earth, it must be painstakingly clear that the section Future reflects one or more models. I dislike the simplistic model presented as being truth. Statements such as:
is far too precise. If I'm not wrong, there are various models of early Venus, one claiming that the oceans evaporated for runaway greenhouse effect very early, such as about 3000-3500 Ma ago, and another that claims that the increasing clouding allowed Venus to be oceanic up to about 800 Ma ago. Such variance in models for Venus should have its counterparts for the future of Earth. The number 900 Ma in future should probably be from 500 to 3000 Ma in future or some such, if similar models are applied to Earth as for Venus. Stating 900 million years would require lots of according to and references. I believe the section presents as facts very speculative modelling attempts very early in the science of planetary meteorology. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I've submitted Volume of the Earth for deletion (see here), in case anyone was interested. Cheers, Ben ( talk) 08:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
This might be a suitable piece of information to include on all of the information bars for the planet series on Wikipedia, as it is a relatively common and useful piece of information. I am finding myself having to search on other sites to acquire this data, which is a rarity for Wikipedia. Take this into consideration and perhaps confer with some of the other talk pages on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.134.41 ( talk) 02:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
i can't put this in because i can't edit this page
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/KatherineMalfucci.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.182.192.11 ( talk) 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me it would make sense to include the surface temperatures in the sidebar in Fahrenheit as well, regardless of their scientific acceptance, they are used by one of the largest countries on the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarfyperson ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
but, while there is a wiki article for underwater, there is no equivalent article for underground. I can't find an appropriate article to add to the disambig page. Is there one? Serendi pod ous 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I'd like to see what would be the opinion on modifications to Human Geography section. The current map causes technical problems - one link on top of the other and enlargement of the width of the article. Also, countries are mentioned but not the continents. Another Wikipedia ( mechanical translation here, "Geography") utilizes the use of clickable map with links to Commons Atlas, while wikilinks to continents are provided within the paragraph. Would that idea work?-- Adi ( talk) 22:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The new map looks fine, and thank you for putting that together. It may make sense to put it in a template for maintenance and re-use. 'Template:Continents' is already taken, so perhaps a name like 'Template:Continents navmap' or 'Template:Earth continents' would work?— RJH ( talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it true that the gravitational pull of the sun and moon causes the earths orbit of the sun and the earths rotation to slow down ever so slightly. if it is would it be worth adding to the article. Mr Deathbat ( talk) 10:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The image in the infobox is not the original Blue Marble from Apollo 17 as the caption claims, it's a home-made gif based on a 2001 retake. For reference, File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg is the original, while File:Rotating earth (large).gif (according to its descripton page) is based on on this NASA image (external link). Disregard that, judging from User talk:South Bay, it was apparently a nonsense . 78.34.155.161 ( talk) 11:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article currently states "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist", this does not really have other possible points of view from other planets in mind, as there are probably most definitely other planets with life and I'm sure they know they exist. This should be changed to show that currently to human beings its the only place known to have life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.138.53 ( talk) 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. We've been discussing here whether it should be "Earth" (as in this article) or "earth" (as the MOS implies here). Apologies if this has already been discussed but I would appreciate some of your thoughts. -- John ( talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
* Sun, earth, and moon are not capitalized when used generally: The sun was peeking over the mountain top. They are proper nouns and capitalized when personified: Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god. and in an astronomical context when referring to specific celestial bodies (our Solar System, Sun, Earth, and Moon): The Moon orbits the Earth, but Io is a moon of Jupiter.
The Associated Press observes the lowercase practice world-wide whenever mentioning of the earth, moon, or sun when writing something like this: For civilian night-vision goggles to work effectively, the moon must be above the horizon. Their practice is compliant with the general grammar rule encapsulated at Grammar.ccc.comment.edu, which states as follows:
• [Do capitalize] Names of celestial bodies: Mars, Saturn, the Milky Way. Do not, howver, capitalize earth, moon, sun, except when those names appear in a context in which other (capitalized) celestial bodies are mentioned. "I like it here on earth," but "It is further from Earth to Mars than it is from Mercury to the Sun.
Since the Earth article is a scientific article, and specifically in an astronomical context, it seems well justified to always capitalize Earth, Sun, and Moon in this article. My personal opinion on the matter is if Earth is being talked about in any scientific manner, it should be capitalized. I can see not capitalizing the sun and the moon in casual sentences, such as "The sun is hot today," or "There is a full moon tonight."
Actually, those sentences led me to the full moon and Full Moon articles. Seems a bit odd those are two separate articles, and "moon" is alternated from lowercase to capital on the full moon article. Anyway, that's just an example I stumbled across just now that proves the ambiguity of this question. By the way, I wouldn't use a really old reference book for comparisons. I don't know for sure but I'd bet it's become more common to capitalize these terms in scientific contexts, and always writing them in lowercase is outdated. LonelyMarble ( talk) 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
does anyone think that the world human population should be included in the infobox? surely that is at least as important to most people reading this article as some of the other figures already there? Jessi1989 ( talk) 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
All the planets in the solar system use Latin names, except Earth. I realize this is because the IAU has no official scientific name for our dear planet, but as far as I know, IAU doesn't have a scientific name for our moon either. Checking the Moon article it reads "The Moon (Latin: Luna)" at the beginning of the article. A similar thing for the Sun, "The Sun (Latin: Sol)".
I am a bit puzzled why there is nothing similar to this for the Earth. In school I remember being taught the latin name for the Earth was Tellus, and I know some people use Terra (from Terra Mater). Shouldn't we at least mention this in the article, instead of simply stating "It is also referred to as the World and Terra."
How about: "Earth (Latin: Tellus/Terra) ..."
Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skela ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
As it is now, the "Designations" section seems rather empty, there's only some rubbish about Adjectives used. Do you have any arguments against it besides personal taste? Skela ( talk) 20:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This may sound obvious, but I think there should be a section dedicated to the etymology of the word "Earth". I have absolutely no idea how it came into place. If I find info, I'll definitely add it. obento musubi 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The number for the surface area used doesn't seem mathematically correct, using the formula for the surface area of a sphere will give a number in the region of 10^14 meters squared where the number here is 10^11. I actually think that the number from the cia world book might be a typo and the period is supposed to be a comma, also looking for an online reference will usually lead back to hear making the reference circular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.171.165 ( talk) 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
oops my bad, did a very silly mistake when changing from meters squared to kilometers squared, thought something was odd about the whole matter. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.44.85.47 (
talk)
21:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
earth is the only living planet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.182.137 ( talk) 08:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The article starts sentences by saying "Earth is" as opposed to "the Earth is". Is that correct? Makewater ( talk) 20:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you please add Template:Physical Earth. I am a newbie user and I can't edit this article. Thanks.
-- BSATwinTowers ( talk) 10:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
In my physics book it says it's about 1.496*10^11m, I wonder if it would be a good idea to include this. btw, I'm using the seventh edition of physics for scientists and engineers with modern physics by serway/jewett (for sourcing purposes if anyone needs it). -- Dguenther - DGun ( talk) 10:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to compare the temperatures of the different inner planets looking at their wikipedia articles. Strangely earth of all articles doesn't seem to have this data I found on a NASA website that it's .04 degrees Celsius. I think this should be added to the climate section It seems like an important and basic fact of a planet. The article is locked however so I could not add it myself. A side note I really don't like the fact that the article on the earth itself is locked, please reconsider this.
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#GlobalTemperature
-Doug 68.25.20.16 ( talk) 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Is "blue planet" a logical name for Earth?? I think it more logically fits Neptune. Georgia guy ( talk) 23:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Gaia be in the list too? Where did Tellurian come from? I've only ever heard this planet being called Earth, the World, Terra, and Gaia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.184.220 ( talk) 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Earth's Greek name is Gaea which us married to Uranus.She is the mother of land formations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melzy2022 ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this file restricted for use only on this article? -- Frank Fontaine ( talk) 19:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this sentence in the lead:
Does it make sense to say Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist? In the context of discussing life on other planets, it strikes me as a little arrogant, as if humans not knowing of any other life is equivalent to other life not being known to exist. I mean, the existence of any other self-aware being (of which we are discussing the possibility of), whether they themselves are aware of life on other planets, is enough to contradict the sentence. Of course, in any other context (like the discussion of a mathematical conjecture) it must be assumed we're talking about humans' understanding (it is not known if conjecture A is true or not, as opposed to humans don't know ..). We also send out a lot of stuff into space, no doubt some of it living, so does that contradict the sentence too? As you roll your eyes and ask if I'm being serious, rest assured I agree that I'm being very picky, and even feel a little foolish bringing it up. Still, I think the sentence could be worded a little more correctly, if only to avoid the issue than try and deal with the issues I've brought up. Ben ( talk) 10:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This article states that "Earth has at least two co-orbital asteroids, 3753 Cruithne and 2002 AA29.". The Quasi-satellite article states that "Earth currently has four known quasi-satellites: 3753 Cruithne, 2002 AA29, 2003 YN107, and 2004 GU9.". -- 93.167.94.18 ( talk) 23:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Doesnt the earth actually have 5 moons now? Shouldnt this be added?
there are now: The Moon, Cruithne, 2000ph5, 2000wn10, 2002aa29.
Bizzehdee ( talk) 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
shouldn't this be "only example currently known to man" as the current statement - taken literaly - would mean that no other planet harbours life in the entire universe. my proposition would be more accurate. user: XM8 Carbine (my log in memmery isn't working) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.136.236 ( talk) 07:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we sould add a clear qualifier that puts both of these statments in to context i.e. that us and the Earth are the only examples we have of life and therefore the 'habitability' of any part of the universe is completely and arbitarily defined by the sample size of N=1. We could add such a clause as (as we currently know it, which is based on a sample size of N=1, is limited by our current observations and is therefore a completely arbitrary definition). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amore proprio ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
At present, only the circumference of 1 paralell is mentioned; can a list be given for how large the other paralells are ? (eg the parallell on the at 70° N/S is much shorter than the 0° parallell)
In addition, the parallells arent really the east-west equivalents of the meridian's: the parallells run parallell to each other (no intersection), while the meridians run towards 1 central point (Northpole, Southpole) and intersect there. What exactly is the true equivalent of the meridians, and what are the equivalents of the paralells (thus lines running paralell from the north/southpole, and not towards it).
Also, shouldn't the ecliptic meridians and their equivalents be used on maps (I'm guessing the "top" of the earth isn't actually the north pole, but rather the area more left towards the 70° parallell is. See File:AxialTiltObliquity.png .
If the proposed parallells and their equivalents don't yet exist, they need to be drawn on a new image and shown in the earth article (and modifications need to be made at Circle of latitude and Meridians
KVDP ( talk) 09:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently the article includes the following statement:
This result is based upon the Bounama et al. (2001) paper, which uses a geophysical model that posits 27% of the current ocean mass will be subducted within the next billion years. In 2006, however, there was a news story:
that states:
Those rates don't seem compatible. Is that because the continents are larger now and there is much higher rate of subduction? But even that wouldn't seem to account for the difference.— RJH ( talk) 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that all the other planets have Latin names, is then "Terra" not the correct name for this planet? And thus "Terran" as the posessive? RadicalOne ( talk) 02:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that "terra" even belongs in the lead, given that the only note that links to it simply informs the reader that the IAU does not recognise the term as a name for the Earth. Serendi pod ous 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The section Future seems to me to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This might seem at odds with science which clearly can make prediction on the fate of the sun. However: I wish to interpret the policy so that, when modelling and guessing the future of Earth, it must be painstakingly clear that the section Future reflects one or more models. I dislike the simplistic model presented as being truth. Statements such as:
is far too precise. If I'm not wrong, there are various models of early Venus, one claiming that the oceans evaporated for runaway greenhouse effect very early, such as about 3000-3500 Ma ago, and another that claims that the increasing clouding allowed Venus to be oceanic up to about 800 Ma ago. Such variance in models for Venus should have its counterparts for the future of Earth. The number 900 Ma in future should probably be from 500 to 3000 Ma in future or some such, if similar models are applied to Earth as for Venus. Stating 900 million years would require lots of according to and references. I believe the section presents as facts very speculative modelling attempts very early in the science of planetary meteorology. ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I've submitted Volume of the Earth for deletion (see here), in case anyone was interested. Cheers, Ben ( talk) 08:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
This might be a suitable piece of information to include on all of the information bars for the planet series on Wikipedia, as it is a relatively common and useful piece of information. I am finding myself having to search on other sites to acquire this data, which is a rarity for Wikipedia. Take this into consideration and perhaps confer with some of the other talk pages on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.134.41 ( talk) 02:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
i can't put this in because i can't edit this page
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/KatherineMalfucci.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.182.192.11 ( talk) 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me it would make sense to include the surface temperatures in the sidebar in Fahrenheit as well, regardless of their scientific acceptance, they are used by one of the largest countries on the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarfyperson ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
but, while there is a wiki article for underwater, there is no equivalent article for underground. I can't find an appropriate article to add to the disambig page. Is there one? Serendi pod ous 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)