Talk:Earth/Archive 3

message: Identifying Earth with the human race seems rather inaccurate to me. There must be a more appropriate article for those stats to go in. I would recommend human. Bonalaw 09:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say they should stay here.  You might split out Earth (planet) (which now redirects here, move info to that article instead) with information similar to that in Mercury (planet) and Venus (planet) and the like, leaving only a little of that here with link. Gene Nygaard 10:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social statistics in the infobox 

message: For the Swedish article I've created an illustration of Earth's interior. If you like it you might want to add it here as well. Have a look at:
# 
# 
/ Mats Halldin 06:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the carbon cycle diagram --Smartech 07:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New illustrations available 

message: Recently 67.161.42.199 added:
:The earth is a very slightly oblate spheriod, with a average diameter of approximately 12,742 kilometers. Since the highest point on the earth, the summit of Mount Everest is only 8,850 meters, the earth is spherical within a tolerance of one part in 1,439, or 0.00069 percent. The mass of the earth is approximately 6 sextillion metric tons. 
The tolerance part of this is nonsense.  We quote in the article "Equatorial diameter 12,756.28 km, Polar diameter 12,713.56 km", giving a difference equator to pole of 43 km at sea level.  As I recall the point farthest from the center is actually at the top of some mountain in South America near the equator.  Though the calculation is apparently wrong, it might still be worth having these few sentences, assuming someone here who isn't about to go bed can figure out how to accurately describe the shape of the Earth.  Dragons flight 08:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
:Mount Chimborazo, to be specific. This needs to be addressed. Fredrik | talk 15:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shape 

message: User:Dragons_flight said that :Image:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.png being placed on the right causes problems: "On wide screens, placing it on the right creates a huge gap between Core and Mantle."  Not on my browser, even when expanding to span two monitors.  Placing the image on the left can produce the text below on a more common width. (I'll work on the monster Infobox some to reduce various problems). (SEWilco)
 [edit]
 Mantle
 Main
 article:
 Mantle
 (geology)
 Earth's
 mantle
 extends to
 a depth of 2890 km. The pressure, at the bottom of the mantle, is
That looks better.  I split the social box off, and moved it next to the Human section.  Infoboxes tend to be at the top of an article, but that would widely separate the related text and box, with a lot of Earth_as_planet between. (SEWilco 05:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image vs Infobox 

message: The first part of this article is total crap...I can't get rid of it cause I can't find it when I go to edit...something's wrong! Bremen 05:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's Going on? 

message: In case someone is interested, the editnote template used in the Mostly Harmless reminder has been suggested for deletion: Templates_for_deletion#Template:Editnote Template author: (SEWilco 18:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  editnote template listed for deletion 

message: I really think the beginning of this article should be more general. (not signed by submitter)
:If that's the case, the article for Solar system needs to be updated. It implies there is only one system centred on Sol. Notinasnaid 19:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as this is about a specific planet.  The beginning does have a link to solar system, which promptly mentions that if you are interested in bodies around other stars you should look at planetary system.  (SEWilco 19:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  there are other solar systems 

message: I always thought it was an oblique spheroid, but this article calls it an oblate spheroid,
how sure are you all about oblate? - (anon) 17:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: oh great, now someone's changed it to an ellipsoid )-:  - (anon) 17:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oblate is correct and is found in geodesy literature.  Oblique would be incorrect.  See the definitions that you linked to.  (Don't know if spheroid is more correct than ellipsoid.)  -- Kbh3rd 16:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oblate/Oblique

message: In school, I was taught that there is pedosphere in addition to  lithosphere, biosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere. There is also article on cryosphere. I wonder, these words are not referenced here, are they still used? Samohyl Jan 11:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about *-spheres 

message: I just reverted an undiscussed move of the article to Earth (planet). The move was made by User:Acid. I don't recall any discussion of such a proposed move. Vsmith 01:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted move 

message: There's already a Earth in fiction article.  I say move this section there.  --kop 01:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descriptions of Earth in Science Fiction 

message: Since huge parts of this article needs to be improved, I've put up talk:Earth/rewrite so people can do radical editing without worrying about breaking anything. This is based on a rewrite attempt I started a few months ago but never finished; some parts that were taken out are missing and others may need to be updated. Fredrik | talk 11:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: The adjective for Earth is "Earthling."  Terrestrial is just our type of planet. — Hurricane Devon (Talk)  22:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Earthling means an inhabitant of Earth. You and me are both Earthlings.--Jyril 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ling means child. We should be Terrians or something, I think. Flameviper12 13:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjective 

message: User:JQF wrote: It should be noted, however, that alternative theories regarding the date of formation do exist.
Before we start an edit war, could somebody describe the alternative scientific theories of Earth's age since I'm not aware of any.--Jyril 15:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but the age can be reasonably agreed upon.  Those who argue for something significantly shorter than 4 thousand million years base their argument on something other than reason.  -- Kbh3rd 17:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: read a physics book --146.244.138.72 19:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of the Earth 

message: On Firefox 1.0.6 (MacOS 10.4.2) the infobox is flooding the article, appearing before just about everything... what's going on here? Alphax τεχ 01:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, looks like it's fixed now... Alphax τεχ 10:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox overwhelming article 

message: Earth's core redirects to here, but there is virtually no information on Earth's core.  Is this information anywhere else in Wikipedia? -Volfy 09:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, fixed Earth's core redirection to go to Structure of the Earth. -Volfy 09:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth's core 

message: Should Earth's population be added in the infobox? --Revolución (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: In the info box for this article it states that the orbital inclination of the earth is 0.00005° . Isnt the correct value for this is exactly 0° as the inclination of the Earths orbit is what the orbital inclinations of the other planets are measured relative to. Does anyone else know enough about this to be sure?   --Timmywimmy 18:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital inclination 

message: History of the Earth would be a much needed addition.  --Revolución (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No History section? 

message: Should a section on the fate of Earth be added?  It is widely theorized that the Earth will either be consumed by the Sun or turned into a Venus or Mercury environment as the Sun expands into a red giant in a few billion years.  Then, once the Sun releases it's outer layers as a planetary nebula, it may very well destroy Earth or at least severely damage it. --tomf688{talk} 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduce a section on the fate of Earth? 

message: and the only planetary body that modern science confirms as harboring life. 
so sceince has to confirm that there is life on earth.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.2.222 (talk • contribs) .
:Trivial though it is on Earth, the point of the sentence is, science has not confirmed life anywhere else. The really funny thing is, science indeed has objectively affirmed there is life on Earth. As a control experiment, the Galileo spacecraft confirmed in its 1990 fly-by that Earth meets the Sagan criteria for harboring life. Femto 14:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what's tricky is deciding what counts as life. I bet there's an article somewhere on definitions of life, probably at life, but it's way too almost-two-in-the-morning for me to follow my own link. If memory serves, the Sagan criteria were for garden-variety life-as-we-know-it life? I'm going for the record in the hundred-meter excessive-unnecessary-hyphenation-style write-off. Kai 06:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think this is a funny statement

message: To the flat Earth advocate,
Since when isn't science neutral?  Scientific theories must be testable and falsifiable, and subjected to peer review. Sometimes science is faked, but fake science can be disproved by better science, and the process is neutral.  If the scientific method is not neutral, then what basis do we have to discuss neutrality?  The flat Earth is a well known theory, but it is widely regarded as an inferior theory to the spherical Earth (and related cosmos), because the modern theory makes better predictions.  If your theory makes better predictions than the sidereal theory, then cite your sources.  If your flat Earth theory makes no predictions, and accounts for nothing that the modern theory does not, then how is it relevant?  Should we assume that you have equal objections to the human article, since it describes people as a species of animal, rather the descendents of deities?  But science does not contradict any alternative theory of the cosmos, and it is neutral on the subject of religion, because untestable hypotheses are not the subject of science.  Science is the activity of finding neutral grounds for which to debate the subjects of empirical inquiry.  Wikipedia is not a source of the truth, it is a secondary source which reports the consensus of verifiable primary sources.  Disagreements on a scientific basis would perhaps be relevant, but disagreements on a basis that is untestable are unwinnable arguments and do not form the subject of an encyclopedia article.  oneismany 14:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science isn't neutral? 

message: This article conforms nicely to NPOV as far as I can tell. The allegations of POV based on religious reasons are groundless. Just as pro-science editors do not slap NPOV tags on religious articles for stating the earth is 6000 years old in those articles, biblical literalist editors should reciprocate that courtesy.--JohnDO|Speak your mind 18:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The bit which lists the geologic components and their depths seems to imply that the atmosphere is less a part of the earth than the solid bit, which varies from standard. Perhaps it should list all layers of the earth and their altitudes, with the sub-solid-surface layers in negative altitudes? I felt I ought to get feedback from more qualified parties before I made a rash change to a good article. Kai 07:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Characteristics 

message: Just wondering if it would be a good idea to describe the location of the Earth within the universe as best we can. It seems like a major omission that the article doesn't even mention that the Earth is in the Milky Way galaxy. There is also no mention of nearby stars. Let's write the article in such a way that a reader who is not from Earth would be able to come visit.
:I think this would be a good idea. Also sorely lacking is a "History" section which I plan to add as I work on History of Earth. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location in the Universe 

message: I notice that Albedo in the infobox seems to be the Geometric Albedo of the Earth, not the Bond Albedo. Should Bond Albedo be included as well? - Bill3000 16:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albedo 

message: (Practically) every article deserves a "history" section, in my opinion. I just added one, but it is not easy to condense 4.5 billion years into a single paragraph. Feel free to add or trim as necessary. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Flameviper12 12:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mostly harmless!