Talk:Earth

Lead: only ocean worlds can contain life?

The lead currently says "Earth is the third planet from the Sun and the only astronomical object known to harbor life. This is enabled by Earth being an ocean world..." The transition between the two sentences flows nicely, but it implies that we know that life can only exist on an ocean world. I think this misstates the current scientific understanding of this subject. T g7 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Rather, I would say that it implies we only know for certain that life can exist on an ocean world, which certainly is the case. Remsense ‥ 论 04:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

By that logic, you could make any statement about Earth: "This is enabled by trees being green", and say that it only implies that life can exist on a planet with green trees, which certainly is the case. 2A01:CB1A:401D:177B:8273:773C:97A1:5132 (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the obvious difference that trees are alive, the other obvious difference is people have noticed how life on Earth was likely made possible by its oceans. Remsense ‥ 论 03:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that life on Earth is made possible by the presence of water, instead of saying that it is made possible because of the presence of oceans? T g7 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

To that, add, 'presence of *liquid water*' (unless you believe extremophiles could evolve on a steam-world). Beyond that, an excess of water relative to landmass is the condition that likely results in oceans. Given a lot lower water/land ratio, I don't see anything to prevent formation of a 'Minnesota planet', with minor land elevation differences, and studded with ponds and streams everywhere; or a mostly waterlogged, 'Bayou planet', covered with trees or vegetation almost everywhere, soaking in variable amounts of water, maybe some flattish continents here and there, but nowhere having enough water for the runoff to pool into oceans. Don't see why life couldn't arise in either of those situations: plenty of water, no oceans. Mathglot (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC Picture change

Which picture should be used in the lead?

• 
  A: Color-calibrated picture (view in article)
• 
  B: NASA picture
  (view in article)
• 
  C: 2018 NASA image
  (view in article)

Prior discussion:

• Talk:Earth/Archive_17#Photographic_representation_of_earth
• Talk:Earth/Archive_18#Photographic_representation_of_Earth
• Talk:Earth#Caption_for_main_photo

WhatisMars (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(@WhatisMars, would you mind specifically tagging the photos as A and B for convenience?)

I'll repeat my previous position briefly. To my knowledge, photo B is the most recognizable rendering of The Blue Marble, one of the most famous photographs in human history, by a significant margin. In my mind, this overrides our ordinary guideline to use a true color photograph as the primary image in the article lead for astronomical objects. Given the particularity of the photograph, in my mind the color correcting process used to create photo A strays uncomfortably close to original research; while the process is generally considered merely technical, the fact that The Blue Marble is a subject of discussion in its own right means to me that we should only reproduce versions of it previously published in reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 19:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree. T g7 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've added image C, and prefer it due to the lesser amount of cloud cover, leading to more recognizable continents at the scale likely to be used in the Infobox. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  (Tangential and unsure at present if I would prefer it in lead position, but wow that photograph is particularly gorgeous.) Remsense ‥ 论 20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• B (invited by the bot) It's more authentic and also has better differentiation. BTW, as someone with background in the field, arguing that a particular versions is "what they actually saw" is not a sound argument. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

C was not in the RFC when I made my post. C is OK, but still prefer B — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

C (Following WP:RFC/SCI) I don't think being the most recognizable photo of earth necessarily makes B the most representative photo of Earth, though it would certainly be the lead image in some future Images of Earth article. C is more recent, shows more surface area vs cloud cover, and includes a far higher percentage of Earth's human population. Safrolic (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• A. For the following reasons:

1. That B is the "default", culturally significant version of The Blue Marble is irrelevant. What matters here is representing the object as closely as possible to what it actually looks like. I am aware that there is no such thing as a "true" photograph, but if A is arguably closer to what a human observer would experience than B, then A must be the preferred choice.
2. That said, A has the advantage over C of being a version of a culturally significant image; this is not a great advantage IMHO but it could flip the choice towards it.
3. The real problem of C is that it is somehow less representative. There is more sea than land on Earth, and A/B show this somehow better than C. Also Earth has a significant cloud cover; picking an image of Earth with low cloud cover in temperate regions could be misleading. All images show both tropical and polar regions, but A/B shows much better the polar ice cap of Antarctica, hinting better at the diversity of climates on Earth.

--cyclopia^speak! 09:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Either C (per above) or a different picture. I'll write my rationale once I have access to a better device. _ZZ^Z'S 14:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• B>C>A - But don't we really need an image that just shows America? I mean, that's the only place that really matters, right? NickCT (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Or actually, just Connecticut, right? Mathglot (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  The way I see it, there's Danbury, and then there's infobox cruft. Remsense ‥ 论 20:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Dunbury's totally lame. Stamford for life yo! NickCT (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ha! How'd ya guess? NickCT (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• C, personally I felt that this picture is the best because it shows the slight limb darkening and the thickness of our atmosphere. A small qualm I have is that the picture is rather dark. 130.245.192.6 (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Picture A would be a nice fit, I definitely think the accuracy of the image matters more than how iconic it is Kypickle (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I continue to be troubled by this argument being acceptable—keeping in mind a claim we are making here whether we find it important or not is "this is the representative version of The Blue Marble", one that is not verifiable in any reliable source—for claims made with images when it surely would not be for claims made with prose. Remsense ‥ 论 03:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

To my understanding, we are discussing which image best represents Earth and is to be used as the leading image in its article, not which image best represents The Blue Marble. We should thus use an image which most accurately represents Earth, and A is the best option by far. AstroChara (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

C: Most recent, the photo from the 1970s is antiquated by comparison. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

A. As per cyclopia above. Qflib (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• I think C is the better picture, in regard of recency, quality, and the orientation including more land while retaining a diverse cloud cover (also, it might be considered irrelevant but I think the fact that the blue marble picture has its own article is an argument for having a different one on this article). Choucas Bleu^talk_contribs 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• A. As per cyclopia. Cultural significance is irrelevant when it comes to representing a celestial body, and in some cases it can also perpetuate misinformation, which I believe is something we want to avoid on Wikipedia.

AstroChara (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

B or C. I agree with User:Remsense. I will explain why I think version A should not be used.

Version B is the original "Blue Marble" photo. We are told that Version A was "color corrected." It is implied that state-of-the-art techniques were used on a decades-old photo to balance out the colors to provide an accurate version of the photo. This, it is implied, is what the Earth really looks like, to objective observers-- it is the natural appearance of the Earth.

The Wikipedia article on color correction is titled Color balance. Anyone who has played with the color sliders on a camera app on a phone knows that color correction can be a subjective process. Someone makes the decisions on how to do the color correction. Software is used, and different software may correct colors in different ways. What software was used on this photo of the Earth? What settings were used within the software? I am not saying we need to know the answers to these questions in order to include a photo on Wikipedia. Rather, I am pointing out that this color-corrected photo was produced by a person or people who made decisions about how to correct the colors. This color-corrected photo, to my knowledge, has not been vetted or approved by any outside organization. As such, this is likely WP:Original Research and, therefore, not appropriate for this article. As Remsense correctly pointed out, had NASA (or some other authoritative source) approved this color-corrected photo, we would be having a different conversation. But my understanding is that NASA did not approve it. So I think photo A should not be used. What do you think? T g7 (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Original research does not apply to images. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That is a facially untenable interpretation of what that policy says. Insofar as images make claims analogous to those made by prose, those claims are required to verifiable, even if editors historically are not as interested or sensitive in applying that standard. In fact, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments is right there in the passage you linked—and my entire point has been that using the color corrected version does in fact constitute an unverifiable claim in this case. Remsense ‥ 论 17:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• C: less cloud cover, and more planet-like (limb darkening, shine). Cremastra ‹ u — c › 22:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• B, the present page image, which shows land, sea, and clouds. Earth is not just land area, and 'B' highlights the various components and weather systems. 'A' is too manipulated (per above and its upload page), and 'C' would be better used on the Desertification page (decade by decade the land areas of Earth are becoming desert, this photo shows it well). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  I was about to amend my !vote to indicate a secondary preference, but you raise a good point that the framing chosen by C to maximize the amount of land visible is actually problematic, not advantageous here. Remsense ‥ 论 23:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• A or B. As said before, either A or B show more of the planet's variation. It also shows Antarctica which I think is quite important. I don't know what it is but C has a white spot on the centre which looks weird to me. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  That would be the Sun's reflection. Remsense ‥ 论 23:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• C as the prettiest one. Actually i would propose this one, which is the best i could find. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• B / keep the current status quo image as it's a WP:Featured picture. Image A, while pretty, looks a bit too touched-up. Some1 (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

C as it has the least cloud coverage and is easier to see the land. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

(FWIW: it's worth reiterating that it being easier to see the land is not necessarily a virtue.) Remsense ‥ 论 23:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2024

I am writing to request the opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia as an editor. I believe that my knowledge and expertise would allow me to make meaningful contributions to the platform, ensuring the accuracy and quality of the information available.

I have been an active user of Wikipedia for a long time, and I have spent considerable time reviewing existing articles, learning the guidelines, and understanding the standards that maintain the integrity of the platform. As a passionate advocate for learning new information , I would like to offer my assistance in improving existing articles, adding verifiable sources, and ensuring that the information presented is up-to-date and factually accurate.

I understand that Wikipedia’s success relies on the collective effort of its volunteer editors and the strict adherence to its guidelines, including neutrality, verifiability, and no original research. I am fully committed to these principles and am eager to participate in maintaining Wikipedia as a reliable and trusted source of knowledge.

I would greatly appreciate your consideration in granting me editing access, and I am happy to comply with any additional steps or requirements that would allow me to contribute effectively and responsibly to the platform.

Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to support the ongoing growth of Wikipedia. 2A0A:EF40:137B:A501:EC19:A966:4F3F:87C2 (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Earth. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. Remsense ‥ 论 14:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That's such a gallowed response. Would it be better to introduce them to Wikipedia instead? 113.160.44.130 (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Rotatable image of earth

↑
N↑
N

← W

E →

S
↓

00

Lately I've been trying to experiment with different forms of interactivity. I made this rotatable earth viewer which has buttons to view the earth from different orientations. I'm not sure if this would be useful in the article. The section on rotation already has an animated GIF that gets the idea across better, and the blue marble image seems much better for the infobox. So it doesn't really seem like it would fit anywhere. However, i thought I'd mention it here in case anyone has a use for it or ideas on where something like this would be useful. Bawolff (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know where it would be useful, but it certainly looks very cool and seems to work well. Thank you for making it! Toadspike [Talk] 12:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2025

Change the Volume of the Earth from 1.08321 × 10^12 km^3 to 1.08321 x 10^18 km^3.

The volume of a sphere (the Earth is not a perfect sphere, but it almost is) is 4/3 x pi x r^3.

The radius of the Earth as given from the page is 6371 km, or 6.371 x 10^6 m.

When plugging this into the volume equation, you get approximately 1.08321 x 10^21 m, which converted into km is 1.08321 x 10^18 km.

Although this number would not be a perfect representation of Earth's volume, it should not be 6 orders of magnitude off, which means the current posted volume is likely an error.

Here is a website corroborating my math SourJam (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

 Note: My math: Volume result is 1.08321 x 10^21 m³ (not m). Converting to km³ is a factor of 10^9, not 10^3 (1000m/km, cubed). That would give 1.08321 x 10^12. But I'd welcome a check from anyone else. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. My bad. SourJam (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Using the 6371 km radius, I get 1.0832069 x 10^12 km³. M.Bitton (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: your calculations don't add up. M.Bitton (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2025

I calculated the earth's radius by finding the average between earth's polar radius and earth's equatorial radius and it's 6367.4445 km and also 12734.889 km in diameter. Ertgiuhnoyo (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Not how it works, see the reliable sources cited for these figures. Remsense ‥ 论 10:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Earth's total land area is wrong

According to the World Bank, Earth's total land area is 129,718,826 sq. km, not 148,940,000 sq. km. The source used in this article is unreliable. Bodies of water such as lakes, reservoirs, rivers, streams, ice sheets, and ice shelves etc. should not be counted as land.

Link: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.K2?start=2022 2001:8003:9100:2C01:A530:1AC4:5C0C:1D94 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The source is not unreliable simply because you disagree with the definition it uses. Remsense ‥ 论 23:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

But the World Bank (a UN specialized agency) is a much more reliable source than a random geography website, isn't it? 2001:8003:9100:2C01:A530:1AC4:5C0C:1D94 (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's only a "random geography website" if you go out of your way to avoid actually analyzing what the source is and what it contains. Remsense ‥ 论 23:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is it considered to be more reliable than the World Bank? 2001:8003:9100:2C01:A530:1AC4:5C0C:1D94 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not about reliability. Both are reliable, they just use different definitions. However, if one would like to use a cited source to learn more about the subject, one is immensely superior to provide here.Remsense ‥ 论 23:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand it. The current source looks like a website which hasn't been updated for 20 years. Why is it still considered to be reliable? 2001:8003:9100:2C01:A530:1AC4:5C0C:1D94 (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

"How old a website looks" isn't a very good point to prioritize in one's analysis of source reliability. In short, this is an ebook published by Michael Pidwirny, an associate professor of Earth, Environmental and Geographic Science at the University of British Columbia. He is clearly a reliable source (recently updated in 2018, since you didn't bother to find that, either) for basic information about physical geography, and this resource is particularly useful and accessible. The issue is that you prefer a different definition and have let that manifest into an odd unwarranted skepticism, that's all. Remsense ‥ 论 00:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you would consider his work to be reliable. This guy doesn't even have his own Wikipedia article. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:A530:1AC4:5C0C:1D94 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Most reliable sources don't. If you care to know, see WP:Reliable sources to learn more in general. Remsense ‥ 论 01:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to add that Note 4 in the article is pertinent; on a day-to-day and year-to-year basis there will be changes to the relative proportions of the Earth's surface that are land and water (almost however you define things) as both natural processes and human schemes play out. Any figure that is precise to a single square km is to be regarded with a deal of care. WP notes in general can help provide background to figures (areas or other stats), not least where they might be considered reliable by one definition or another, but nevertheless conflict. Geopersona (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)