Talk:Earth/Archive 7

message: The Earth rotates 366.26 times but this equals 365.26 days?  Can anyone explain?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.153.189 (talk • contribs) 6 December 2007 15:56 
*Confused? I was: follow the link at the end of the sentence for the explanation. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious Problem?

message: Why can't we get the little lock protection symbol like on George W. Bush or Leet for aesthetic purposes? Aaron Bowen 22:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? Aaron Bowen 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page currently has a  template. The GWB page uses the  template, which is apparently intended for longer-term protection. — RJH (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the logic that applies is that template very ugly on the article --Walter  Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 10:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. — RJH (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection symbol

message: Shouldn't the fact box have reference notes?  I think this is especially important since several of the numbers in the fact box do not show up in the main article.  For instance, what is the source of the min/mean/max temperatures?  They are not mentioned anywhere in the article and therefore there is no traceability.  Spaceman13 15:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that most of the data came from the linked pages in the references section, so there would be a lot of repeated citations. — RJH (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - we don't want repeated citations, and it is nice to have a clean fact box.  Perhaps the answer is to slowly fold in the facts in the fact box into the main article, where they can have a reference, like any other fact.  Using my example above, it sure would be nice to have references to the temperature in the atmosphere section (weather and climate).  Perhaps I'll take a run at some of the numbersthat I'm most comfortable with.  Spaceman13 00:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Precession of the Equinoxes? — RJH (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Consistency is definitely a problem on wikipedia. Everybody has their own unique style and preferences. I'm constantly surprised at some of the trivial variations that get imposed. But I usually just try to make sure the facts remain correct and don't sweat the minor style issues... unless I'm having an overdose of caffeine. %-) — RJH (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts box

message: I seem to recall a rectangular map of the earth posted on wiki, of approximately those dimensions. Does anybody have a link to it they can share?24.205.34.217 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: scratch that, found it. [] 24.205.34.217 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nice picture Knucktwo 20:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  25000x30000 (or so) image of earth 

message: Human Viewpoint needs a change of name. Human Viewpoint makes me imagine a View of earth, not beliefs and religious point of views. A suitable name should be choosen, something like Other Beliefs, or Human Beliefs, something that sounds more like a headline on the religious side of EARTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikro (talk • contribs) 
:Object — The section is not specifically about religion, since it also covers philosophy, environmentalism and cartography. "Human viewpoint" seems quite appropriate to me, while "Other beliefs" and "Human beliefs" most definitely do not. See viewpoint on wiktionary for alternate definitions. — RJH (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewpoint change 

message: If Earth is the name of the planet, why does the article use the colloquial name "the Earth" throughout? The articles on Mars and Venus don't talk about "the Mars" and "the Venus". In fact, the articles on Mars and Venus refer to Earth (and this article) as "Earth", not "the Earth". — Runtime 20:00, 25 May 25 2007 (UTC)
:Perhaps to distinguish it from earth? (Especially vocally where case may not be apparent.) — RJH (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good question, in fact, to me, an article not talking about earth would say The Earth where as an article talking about earth would just say Earth, it's just sounds more appropriate to me.
§→Nikro 15:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested some help from the Grammar WikiProject. Hopefully they can clear this up. — RJH (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Earth" vs "the Earth"? 

message: CalRis 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. 39,600/3600 = 11.00, so somebody must have rounded off. Yoder (1995) gives the escape velocity as 11.186 km/s, so that's likely the correct value. — RJH (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact box: erroneous entry "escape velocity"? 

message: Should other possibilities of the Earth's  future be added? I mean, other than the Sun becoming a Red Giant? Like, an asteroid collision thing? Or just the Ice Age that scientists are predicting in a few thousand years? Spark Moon 04:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article page, "Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth", covers other possibilities in more detail. This page is written summary style, so I don't think it would be helpful to go into too much detail or to describe very uncertain possibilities. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But a new iceage, for example, is not very uncertain. We may not be able to give the year and day of the week it starts, but it is certain it will happen some day. Also, maybe we should mention tectonic movement. - Redmess 13:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future

message: Why is this in American English, and not British English. Just wondering... Juckum 12:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely because the original version was created by people versed in the former dialect, rather than the later. See WP:MoS#National_varieties_of_English. Personally I wish wikipedia would support some type of XML tags that allowed "regionalisms". — RJH (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article appears to be inconsistent in spelling convention.  American spellings are used for many words (aluminum, stablized, etc), but the unit of length is spelled "metre" throughout.  I think it makes sense to follow one convention or the other, but I hesitate to change it because people are strangely prickly about spelling changes. Rracecarr 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a quick pass to standardize the spellings, using British English. That seems to reflect the majority of the spelling - I got significantly fewer "hits" using a BrE spell check than with an AmE one. Please adjust any that I've missed - thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 22:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your changes per WP:MoS#National_varieties_of_English. Sorry. "metre" is an international standard, rather than strictly American/British and therefore seems acceptible to most people. — RJH (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, the spelling 'metre' is not found in American English.  I have altered the spellings accordingly. — Saaber 12:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a never-ending debate, and I'm sure it'll be switched back and forth many times in the future. — RJH (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American English 

message: The future section which talks about the destruction and inhabitability of Earth talks about time frames such as 9,000,000 years and 5,000,000,000 years until Earth could become, well, not livable and destroyed. One of the fundamental reasons for thinking about the destruction of the Earth is that humans need it to live and %100 of the people reading it will be human, so the ability for humans to live on Earth when it's destruction comes seems paramount to the future of the Earth section and relates to %100 percent of the readers of this article. The problem is that it talks about these massive numbers, 900 million years and 5 billion years until the Sun will blow up and such, but it doesn't give a contrast on what that could mean to the dominant species of the planet, us humans. I thought it would be a good idea to add that the destruction of the Earth in 5 billion years will have little bearing on humans as we know them today, because humans will in all probability not exist in 5 billion years time. Humans and human forms as we know them have only been around for about 130,000 years, so it is inconceivable that humans will not be extinct or have evolved into something else completely in 5 billion years time. Humans being the dominant species on Earth and humanity being of primary interest to this articles human readers, it makes absolute sense to add this to the end of the Future section. There are many scientific journals and articles out there that can source the claims about the fate of human (h. sapian) kind in 5 billion years time, so sourcing isn't a problem, I just want to know if anyone has a good idea of how to word this. JayKeaton 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth covers the possible effects on humanity in detail, and is the appropriate place for this topic. The information in the "Future" section doesn't require probabilistic speculation because it is based upon known and inevitable physical processes. I don't think that a lengthy and speculative essay on the future of humanity is needed here, or appropriate (per WP:Crystal_Ball#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball). Sorry. What may be missing from that section, though, is a discussion of the internal cooling of the Earth, and the consequent loss of tectonic activity and the planet's magnetic field. It'd be good to know the time frame for that to occur. — RJH (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't proposing a lengthy essay at all, just a single sentence to summerise that as far as consequences from a human perspective goes, the speculation of the Earths doom in 5 billion years time is meaningless. JayKeaton 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. For a scientific value, it should be possible to compare the duration to the average survival time for a species. (I.e. average time between when a species first formed and when it became extinct.) That would at least put it into some type of perspective. But I don't know that you really can claim that a human-derived intelligence won't be around in 5 Gyr. — RJH (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future section

message: The orbital distance under the Orbit and rotation head, last paragraph are off a factor 100. The numbers in the fact box are correct: Earth orbits at 150Gm, not 1.5Gm.
:Yup. This page attracts a lot of edits, and some of them are well-meaning but invalid changes. Thanks for the catch. — RJH (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I goofed on that one; I should have re-read the paragraph before modifying the number. No the 1.5 Gm value is correct for the Hill radius, per footnote 72. It is supposed to be one hundredth of an A.U., not the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun. My bad. — RJH (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faux numbers 

message: I came to this page looking for the age of the earth and information about how it was created. Am I missing it? Religious theories are mentioned and linked, but not actual ones? ~ Strathmeyer 16:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's covered in the Earth#History section on the main article page. — RJH (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation? 

message: Where does the name "Earth" come from? --Antonio.sierra 04:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Earth' is Germanic in origin. It's just an old Germanic word meaning land, just like 'terra' in Romance/Latinate languages. Hence, 'earth' is cognate with the German word for earth ('erd') and it's probably something similar in other Germanic languages, like Dutch or Norwegian or whatever. What has always interested me is the similarity between the semitic words for earth (Arabic: 'Ard', Hebrew: 'Ertz') and the Germanic words for earth- it's very odd, as there's no known historical connection between semitic and germanic languages. I've never received an answer for this. Anybody know? Tanzeel 13:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED mentions the "plausible" Aryan root *ar — plough — as the ultimate source of the Germanic, but only to dismiss it as "being open to serious objection". Not useful, I'm afraid, except to show that Tanzeel is in good company. --Old Moonraker 15:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It amuses me to think that people referring to the dirt beneath their feet has, due to linguistic laziness, led to a common name for the entire planet :)   ~ Raerth is today known as 85.133.43.50 12:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin and history of the name Earth 

message: I have a suggestion with regards to this snippet.
Many localized areas are subject to human-made pollution of the air and water, acid rain and toxic substances, loss of vegetation (overgrazing, deforestation, desertification), loss of wildlife, species extinction, soil degradation, soil depletion, erosion, and introduction of invasive species. Human activities are also producing long-term climate alteration due to industrial carbon dioxide emissions. This is expected to produce changes such as the melting of glaciers and Arctic ice, more extreme temperatures, significant changes in weather conditions and a global rise in average sea levels. 
I understand that Global Warming is a hot topic at the moment, but why does it need to take up 2/3 of the human-caused hazards part in a brief summary of Hazards? In my opinion you wouldn't need more than a blurb about GW in the list of other destruction humans cause, in fact, it would really be a subcategory of pollution of the air and water. Alternatively, since the first sentence is talking about localized hazards, we could make a jump to global hazards like so:
Many localized areas are subject to human-made pollution of the air and water, acid rain and toxic substances, loss of vegetation (overgrazing, deforestation, desertification), loss of wildlife, species extinction, soil degradation, soil depletion, erosion, and introduction of invasive species. On a global level, human activity has been linked to an overall warming of the earth's climate .
What are your thoughts? And Please, I don't want to get involved in a discussion about Global Warming.
--Popoi 21:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, a three paragraph argument about the elimination of a single sentence. Eliminating that sentence is not going to significantly reduce the dimensions of the article. You make no claims regarding the accuracy of the sentence. All else being equal, global changes are clearly more impacting than local changes, so a greater weight seems apropos. Sorry to say it, but I don't think this change would be beneficial. So I would have to object to your proposal. — RJH (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural and Environmental Hazards 

message: The first paragraph of the lead was changed to the following:
:"Earth" (Latin: Terra, ) is the third planet from the Sun and is the largest of the terrestrial planets in the Solar System, in both diameter and mass. Home to a myriad of species including the dominant animal, humans; it is also referred to as "the Earth", "Planet Earth", "Gaia", "the World" and its official scientific name is the Latin: Terra, after the Roman goddess "Terra"; it is the only planet in the Solar system which is known commonly by an english translation of its actual Latin name.
However the assertions about an official IAU name are unsourced, so it needs a valid citation. Otherwise I'm not sure I see a valid need to place such an emphasis on the latin name of the planet. (See WP:MoS#Foreign_terms.) — RJH (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasis of Terra in the lead 

message: The addition of the template showing "Earth" as the "Person of the Year" seems to be an invalid addition. The TIME magazine gives the meaning of you as people:
:And for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, TIME's Person of the Year for 2006 is you.
BBC gives the interpretation as:
:...growth and influence of user-generated content on the internet.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the planet Earth; it is about people, as is appropriate to the award name. So the template appears inappropriate and I have reverted it. — RJH (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "You" is the 2006 "Person of the Year". The template, quite correctly, stated Earth as the 1988 "Person of the Year". -- Jao 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad then. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to the cover of the issue in question: the 1988 "Planet of the Year" designation. --Ckatzchatspy 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Just what we need, another template. :-) — RJH (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "You" Time Person of the Year 

message: Surface area: 	510,065,600 km²
Land area: 	148,939,100 km² (29.2 %)
Water area: 	361,126,400 km² (70.8 %)
My poor maths skills tell me those numbers don't add up? I call massive worldwide governmental conspiricy coverup for that missing 100 km² :)
Seriously though, they don't add up, so which number is wrong?
:Probably somebody just made a typo. But it'd be good to get that entire table cited properly with the best available sources. — RJH (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface Area Error ? 

message: I recently took a test asking how many planets are named after a Greek or Roman God, after reading through this I am still not sure. Can someone clarify?
Mercury is Roman, as are Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (if your test was old). This article says that Earth is referred to as both Terra and Gaia. · AndonicO Talk 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should have a name section listing the various names earth is known by in my opinion. Anyone else's thoughts? Cryo921 02:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Uranus is actually Greek. The rest are Roman, though. Kairos 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name?

message: I have removed the following sentence since it is not supported by a relevant citation:
"Specifically, for Earth's oceans, the lower temperatures in the crust will permit water to leak more deeply into the planet than it does today."
The citation that follows it is to a seven-year-old BBC news article , and it refers only to evaporation, not leakage into the crust.  GrahamN 14:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I agree. Unfortunately that paragraph no longer seems a very satisfactory discussion of the topic of atmospheric loss. I think it needs more work. — RJH (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Water leaking into cooler crust? Citation needed 

message: "The planet formed about 4.57 billion years" - This takes the scientific opinion as fact, thus giving Bias to the scientific view, when alternate views exist.
Consider "Scientists estimate that the Earth was formed about 4.57 billion years". StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 15:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten it to "The planet is estimated to have been  formed about 4.57 billion years ago. StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 16:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced weasely is estimated to have been  formed about... bit w/ Current scientific evidence indicates... It is not scientific opinion, rather it is scientific fact based on current research and evidence. Vsmith 00:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked the above slightly to remove "Current" - Wikipedia is considered to be current, and use of the word is discouraged. --Ckatzchatspy 03:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scientific evidence indicates that" could be inserted into this article (and many others) in dozens of places.  I think it's pretty superfluous. Rracecarr 18:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An age range might be appropriate. This USGS source lists 4.53–4.58 Gyr, for example, then references Dalrymple (1991). The Age of the Earth article lists 4.54 Gyr using the same source. Listing 4.57 Gyr could give the illusory appearance of higher accuracy. — RJH (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientific evidence indicates concerning the age of the planet is sketchy, if you ask me. Estimated would be a better word to use, as I for one personally don't believe the Earth is millions of years old and the evidence I've seen actually suggests it's much younger than a million years old. Estimated is A: less likely to get people riled up (I personally won't get riled up about it, but others would) and B: less biased. And, despite claims that it's scientific "fact", it's actually theory, so estimate would better fit. You can believe what you want about the age of the earth, but surely you see how estimate is more unbiased. Anakinjmt 03:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take your viewpoint as religiously biased, and therefore unscientific. This page is based on scientific evidence rather than religious dogma. I don't think that yet another debate on the topic would be beneficial for this purpose. Try Age_of_the_Earth#Religious_concepts. — RJH (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My faith doesn't have anything to do with wording of something. And the fact is that it is still theory that is accepted as fact, hence why estimate would be better. I don't want to get into a religious debate here, I just think estimate would be the best unbiased word to use, because stating it as fact IS a bias. Anakinjmt 16:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All measurements are estimates, and there will always be some slight uncertaintly in the value. Stating "estimate" for every measured value is redundant, however, and I usually only see it employed when the error is close to the same order of magnitude as the value. In this case the value is listed (I believe) by at least one source as 4.54±0.03 Gyr. Another lists the error range as on the order of 1%. — RJH (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes some sense. I still think estimate would be a better word, but your reasoning makes sense, from a non-faith point of view, so I guess I can deal with it. Anakinjmt 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: ...said the anonymous Troll from beneath the bridge. — RJH (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth age 

message: the earth is not round but ovil and is the center of the univers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoobe (talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ovals aren't round? -- SamSim 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Earth is not the center of the universe, to be more precise America is the center of the universe ;) Hehehe. Nah, just in case you were serious it is now known that Earth is not the center of our galaxy, let alone the universe. JayKeaton 13:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  earth  

message: Please change the spelling of Aluminum to the internationally accepted Aluminium (see spelling debate at that article). I can't make the change becuase this article has been SP for a stupidly long period. Thanks. 82.27.238.134 10:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Why not get yourself a userid so you can fix things like that? Vsmith 13:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This page has been "SP for a stupidly long period" because of the idiocy of anonymous vandals. Likely it will keep being placed on SP as it is a vandal magnet, and I hope it will become permanently protected. Tough nuggies. =) — RJH (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just changed it back to aluminum. The spelling debate here is "stupidly long" and it doesn't reach any consensus.  This article uses American spelling (meter, etc), and should be kept consistent.  Note that "aluminum" gets more google hits than "aluminium". Rracecarr 16:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Number of Google hits? Totally irrelevant. 82.27.238.134 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they did reach a consensus, to use Aluminium, as per the IUAPC preference. You might think that America owns the Earth, but it doesn't. The spelling of Aluminium should be consistent in Wikipedia as a whole, not just in a single article. RJHall:your comments are pathetic. If you thnk articles should be permanently protected you have no place at Wikipedia. 82.27.238.134 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they didn't reach a consensus.  It's a huge mess of everyone trumpeting his own opinion, with no clear majority tending either way.  Anyway, the point is that the spelling should be consistent throughout the article.  Spellings are not consistent across all of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia has no preference between the national varieties of English spelling: there ARE spelling difference from article to article.  But each individual article should be consistent. Rracecarr 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's use the scientifically preferred variant of Aluminium - which is also the Wikipedia preferred variant (see the name of the article Aluminium - and if that requires a wholesale conversion of Earth from AmE to BrE to ensure consistency, then let's go with it. 82.27.238.134 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't buy that it's the "scientifically preferred" variant.  Google Scholar is a search engine for scientific publications.  It comes up with 2,800,000 hits for "aluminum" and 867,000 for "aluminium".  If "aluminium" is scientifically preferred, apparently the scientists don't know it. Rracecarr 19:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted earlier, any search engine comparison result is totally irrelevant. AmE variants will always come ahead of BrE variants for all contentious words, simply because of the USA's much greater internet use than that of any other country. 82.27.238.134 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Using google searches that you personally have specified is not a proper reference. It is original work and hence cannot be used in WP. Jim77742 05:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Where is this discussion?  I can't find it in the archives.  Searching a scientific database for "aluminum" and "aluminium" is not OR.  It is just a quick way to get a census of reliable scientific sources that anyone can verify, and it clearly demonstrates the fallacy of the claim that the "scientific" spelling is aluminium.  I think it is silly to use the British spelling in an article that otherwise adheres consistently to US usage. But who really cares, I guess. Rracecarr 03:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science#IUPAC_Standard Vsmith 17:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to challenge this statement: "Searching a scientific database for "aluminum" and "aluminium" is not OR". Whilst searching a published database is not OR you have applied some intelligence and data analysis skills in selection of your parameters. And those assumptions and data analysis are challengeable (as others have done). But the analysis is not in a published work. If Fred Smith had done the search and published it in a New Scientist article - no problems, go for your life. But you have done the search and data analysis to advance your position. And that is OR. Jim77742 05:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What is more important - ensuring a consistent use of an English language variant within an article, or the consistent use of IUPAC spelling throughout Wikipedia? I suggest the latter. Maybe we have to take a vote on it for this article. While we're about it; kilometer and the like should also be changed to the international standard, although I prefer just to abbreviate the units to km etc. That way nobody is put out. 82.27.238.134 16:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Some things on wikipedia flip-flop back and forth so much that it gets decidedly silly at times. (E.g. linking dates or the use of units.) This may be one of those. But as long as the fundamental facts are straight and the reader can figure them out, we're probably okay. — RJH (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Would it be redundant or unnecessary to instead say "Earth is the only place in the universe known by humans to harbor life"? Giamgiam 00:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both. --Ckatzchatspy 05:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A common guideline is to write for humans.  The edits made by others will be considered when they are made.  (SEWilco 16:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When some aliens start editing Wikipedia, we'll simply edit that sentence to read "Earth is the only place in the universe known by humans or aliens to harbor life". -- SamSim (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we'll know when editors start using alien IP adresses, right? In fact, it's possible that some wikipedia users might in fact be non-human. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 16:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reply I would say that this speculation is getting off topic and should probably be discussed elsewhere. — RJH (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "only place in the universe known to harbor life" 

message: Is it really true that Earth is the only place in the universe to harbor life? What about space stations? It seems like a minor point; but we might as well get it correct. -- Rmrfstar 01:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I thought about the fact that we know bacteria may have been transported to Mars and elsewhere via spacecraft. But I took "harbor" to mean that it could exist natively on Earth without special environmental support. — RJH (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It does not say there is no life elsewhere, but the only "known" place to have life. I would be for striking the sentence. First of all, although we are not sure there is life on other planets, it is very likely to exist according to current scientific status. Secondly, there are many other things that we only are sure of to exist on Earth. Why single out life? In my view it is a rather empty statement, not adding any value to the article. −Woodstone 12:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys are missing the point. Space stations are not on Earth and yet harbor life. This is not about other planets. Harbor doesn't mean "exist natively". And there is nothing wrong with saying "known"; it is indeed very important that Earth is the only place known to harbor life (except space stations). -- Rmrfstar 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I'm not missing the point. I just don't think the lead should get bogged down in such pedantic details. You couldn't just say space stations; you also have to cover unmanned spacecraft and then explain why it is so. If the word "native" or "natively" can be inserted without disrupting the flow of the text, then perhaps that would cover it. — RJH (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK. How about "Earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor native life"? -- Rmrfstar 20:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I was thinking along those lines. Another would be "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to have originated." But that might be tested by the exogenesis hypothesis. — RJH (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think yours is better. That it could be proven wrong is fine, because "known" is included. I'm putting that in. -- Rmrfstar 22:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should work, I hope. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RJH is right to flag up the exogeneis hypothesis; the wording is clearly incorrect. It is very likely that life originated on earth but it is not known to have done so. It may have originated on Mars when that planet had an atmosphere and surface water and subsequently reached earth. As unlikely as this seems, the other alternatives also seem unlikely (origin on earth prior to the ending of the early bombardment phase and survival during this period, or dramatically quick origin as soon as the bombardment phase ended). Clumsy as it seems, I would rather see "Earth and its inhabited artificial satellites are the only places in the universe where life is known to exist." -- Spiridens 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording in lede 

message: Removed the following - appears to be simply a promotion of a "religious view". A simple one-liner would seem adequate in the cultural section, seems there is a ref to Gaia already. The article is already too long.
:===Astrology===
:Numerous esoteric and psychic lore related sources affirm that the Earth is a living energy being: "... know ye that the Earth is living in body - as thou art alive in thine own formed form. - The Flower of Life is as thine own place of Spirit - and streams through the Earth - as thine flows through thy form; - giving of life to the Earth and its children, - renewing the Spirit from form unto form..." Emerald Tablets of Thoth. The Keys of Life and Death. http://www.crystalinks.com/emerald13bw.html.
:Its supposed special energy relation to the other celestial bodies had become a basis of both Vedic and Western Astrologies. The system of Astrological Houses ('Bhavas' in Vedic Astrology) is calculated for a given nativity based on Earth's rotation around its axis. Adherents believe that other planets and celestial bodies influence the humans and other life forms on Earth via energy connection to the Earth as a mediator and mother-planet for its inhabitants. See more in Graha.
Please discuss here. Vsmith 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It being not verifiable by contemporary official science" might not be true, but being "verifiable" must be true for it to be in Wikipedia. I find the text unreadable, non-encyclopaedic and agree completely with Vsmith. Feel free to expand in Graha or elsewhere - it does not belong in a scientific article. Jim77742 12:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion of various mythologies etc. seems to be a random hodgepodge already, there's no need to add another one. On what basis are several ancient cultures out of hundreds being singled out anyway? In any case, if someone is interested in mythology or superstitions they will look at the relevant mythology or superstition article, not at Earth. Deuar 14:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just edited the section, taking out the recent additions, which, besides a quotation that didn't seem to fit it, seemed mostly to repeat information already included.  I added "See also Graha." to an earlier paragraph.Rracecarr 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe those specific cultures are being singled out so much as those are the ones that people have bothered to include. This is also true on many other pages about culturally-significant astronomical objects, and I don't really see an issue with it as long as the material is valid. What I am hoping is that somebody will build a more complete article page on the cultural viewpoints and we can just convert that section to summary style. Unfortunately the subject isn't really of interest to me. — RJH (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology 

message: Regarding recent renaming of the "oblateness" parameter in the infobox to "flattening" and back. If you have a look at flattening and oblate spheroid (which is linked to from the oblateness field), it becomes clear that the two terms "oblateness" and "flattening" are synonymous. As to which one should be used, there are at least two arguments that support "flattening":
*It is a term that is easier to understand for a reader who is not familiar with planetary astronomy. "Oblateness" is quite jargony, although - sure - it sounds more "learned" if you're familiar with it.
*It is commonly used in the professional literature (oblateness occurs as well). For example, NASA factsheets such as this one at NSSDC use "flattening". 
On the basis of these, "flattening" is preferable on the whole. Deuar 10:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... seems flattening as used here is a bit of misleading jargon as 0.335% departure from spherical is nowhere near flat. As such oblateness is far more accurate for visualizing the small difference. But, yes, oblate sounds more jargony than flatness - so who needs accuracy in a statement ... won't change it back for now. At least I'm relieved that this wasn't an attack of the flat earthers. Cheers, Vsmith 01:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oblateness vs flattening 

message: i was watching a old episode of the show QI the other day, and i heard that earth has a second moon that only appears every few hundred years, is this information correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanhalenrulesforever (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Deuar 13:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You're referring to Cruithne ~Kaimbridge~19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  second moon? 

message: This article is protected (argh!), but there appears to be some vandalism on it:



really ought not to be at the bottom of the page as it's quite silly.
:It isn't vandalism, it actually was designated as such by the magazine. Thanks for checking, however - it is appreciated. --Ckatzchatspy 06:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the information in the infobox is correct, albeit silly. As to whether it belongs on this page, well... personally I certainly wouldn't object if there was a consensus to remove it. — RJH (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedian Timeians probably want a complete chain of Time People navboxes.  This is way at the bottom with other navboxes, and that seems appropriate for several reasons.  (SEWilco 19:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sigh. I consider it trivia, but whatever. — RJH (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time's "planet of the year?" 

message: Out of curiosity, how many people have blanked the article and written "Harmless" or "Mostly harmless" in its place?--Tomoko4004 01:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to happen about once a week or so. The bots appear to do a decent job of flushing that type of vandalism. — RJH (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. ^^;--Tomoko4004 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmless 

message: Apparently a couple of editors have taken offense to this image and have tried on a few occasions to have it removed. I don't have any particular preference in this regard, but I would like to know what the consensus is before it gets permanently removed. So what do you think: keep it or lose it? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not factual: it's an interpretation by the contributor and, as far as I can see,  original research. Supporting deletion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As there have been no objections after a week of discussion, I believe the consensus is to remove the artwork. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of red giant image 

message: This article has been indef semi-protected per my request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It has previously been protected (non-indef) many times before. If anyone feels that the article needs to be unprotected in the future please feel free to post on this talk page or over at RfPP. My rational for this protect was/will always be heavy IP vandalism, as this article is very high profile. Hope this gives everyone who watches this article a break. Cheers —Cronholm144 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indef semi protection 

message: The page states there is only one Moon, the Moon, for Earth. However, there is the second moon Curithne
TTRP (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Moon section specifically mentions Cruithne and another as co-orbital satellites: "Earth has at least two co-orbital satellites, the asteroids 3753 Cruithne and 2002 AA29." (with reference: ) Nihiltres{t.l} 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Moon