This is an archive of past discussions about Earth. 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.

This edit request to Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change all mentions of "the moon" to "luna"

change all mentions of "the sun" to "sol"

preferably change all mentions of "earth" to "terra" but that isn't very necessary yet Tygical ( talk) 04:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this will not be happening per WP:COMMONNAME—on Wikipedia, we use the most recognizable names for a general audience. Remsense 诉 04:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The Nazca, Indian, and Filipino plates are very prominently marked on the image displayed, even when they aren't understood as the 7 major plates as per the relevant paragraph. I feel like updating the graphic to one with all unmentioned plates greyed-out as "others" would be a sensible alternative, which would also free up cyan and red to be used in the color-coding. 157.92.14.69 ( talk) 18:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The caption could perhaps be reworded. As to the map, the Philippine Sea Plate is the only one shown where the colour is opaque, which looks odd, perhaps there are more suitable alternatives out there. Mikenorton ( talk) 21:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Tectonic plates (2022).svg is an alternative, although we would need to look again at the article text, as that map includes the Somali Plate. Mikenorton ( talk) 22:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The artist rendition of an Archean landscape is simply wrong. The sky (atmosphere) is believed to have been methane rich and pink/orange, not blue. The Earth-Moon distance back then was probably 40+ Earth radii (currently, it's ~60) so the Moon, if it were visible, would not occupy such a huge fraction of the sky. Its appearance would not be so similar to the modern Moon's surface. In addition, with the near-by volcanic activity, there's even more reason to believe you would not see blue sky. And with more particulates its unlikely that the Moon would be visible at all during daylight. If the artist's impression is supposed to be accurate and representative, I question why it shows a shallow lake or ocean without waves. The complete absence of life should be more apparent. This same artwork appears in a number of other Wikipedia articles, and it is just as wrong/misleading there as it is here. 98.17.181.251 ( talk) 05:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Would, within the first sentence, "known object to create life" or something of that means be more appropriate? Because of the fact we have the ISS and other things of that sort that are inhabited outside of Earth, it might be better. Please try and find something better than create, but the idea is that Earth isn't the only known inhabited thing in the universe. 60.240.247.190 ( talk) 12:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Right before what you're mentioning it says "astronomical object". TheFellaVB ( talk) 11:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

More than two years ago, a consensus was reached on Earth's talk page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Earth&oldid=1070139987#Photographic_representation_of_earth) regarding which version of The Blue Marble should be used to illustrate Earth.

Earth's article is primarily a scientific page, not a cultural one, and therefore should include accurate imagery of Earth rather than romanticized or distorted photographs, even if they are "culturally significant." Take, for example, Neptune. For years, a false color, vividly blue representation was used to illustrate it, and our cultural perception of Neptune was distorted as a result. Now, its current infobox properly uses a newly processed, true-color photograph, and the public perception of Neptune is finally closer to the truth. I believe that, unless a newer true-color image is chosen, the color-calibrated version of the 1972 photograph should be used. Aaron1a12 ( talk) 19:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Also pointing out that the (still WIP) MOS:ASTRO explicitly states the infobox image should favor accuracy and clarity above all else when possible. ArkHyena ( talk) 19:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It is very debatable whether there is such a thing as "true color" when it comes to photography in general and astronomical photography in particular. If "true color" is the colors which would be seen by the 'average' human *under the same lighting conditions*, that seems reasonable. Almost always photographs are adjusted (doctored) for various contrast, temperature, and chroma parameters. The ideals of accuracy and clarity come into conflict, especially with the Gas and Ice Giants as the various colors are low contrast and of faint hue. So, accurate pictures will show a lot less detail than high contrast ones. Seems to me the ideal is to provide both. 98.17.181.251 ( talk) 04:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Although I prefer The Blue Marble, here's an alternative full-disk view of Earth taken by NASA's DSCOVR craft in 2018:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_Seen_From_DSCOVR.jpg Aaron1a12 ( talk) 01:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

As you may have heard, Earth has a second moon! It’s an asteroid that got close enough to Earth and it is currently orbiting, and it will for another couple of months. Someone needs to change the page to account for the moon. Whole Instance ( talk) 22:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

True Gawkgawk30000 ( talk) 13:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

These events happen semi-regularly (see Temporary satellite) and are therefore quite trivial and do not belong in this article. Ark Hyena (it/its) 13:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:ArkHyena. Temporary moons happen all the times, and 2024PT5 is already mentioned in the article Claimed_moons_of_Earth linked from this article. There is no need to mention small asteroids beyond that which is already mentioned. Dhrm77 ( talk) 14:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

OPPOSE Unnecessary. 120.16.78.95 ( talk) 07:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

wdym new moon???????? ImNotGettingAUsernameOk101 ( talk) 07:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 120.16.78.95 ( talk) 07:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

i mean like i didn't know earth has a new moon lol ImNotGettingAUsernameOk101 ( talk) 08:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

i mean like i didn't know earth has a new 2nd moon lol ImNotGettingAUsernameOk101 ( talk) 08:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not a second moon, it is just a temporary moon. 120.16.78.95 ( talk) 08:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

ahhh ok ImNotGettingAUsernameOk101 ( talk) 08:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Blue and green planet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21 § Colour redirects to earth until a consensus is reached. Cremastra ( u — c) 01:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Planet of Water has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21 § Planet of Water until a consensus is reached. Cremastra ( u — c) 01:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Third planet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 21 § Ambiguous "planet 3" redirects until a consensus is reached. Cremastra ( u — c) 01:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

OPPOSE There are a lot of Third Planets in the Universe. It should be a disambiguation page instead of a redirection to the article Earth. 120.16.78.95 ( talk) 07:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The caption on the main photo of Earth currently reads: " The Blue Marble, Apollo 17, December 1972". The photo used is the color-calibrated version of the Blue Marble, so I think the phrase "color calibrated" should be included somewhere, as all other planet captions mention being in true color, for example Mars. Speaking of Mars, the caption on that article also mentions the landmarks in the photo, so should we mention that in the Blue Marble photo "Africa can be seen, etc."?

Any thoughts? CherrySoda ( talk) 23:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Neither of these are necessary. We specify true color because readers are often expecting calibrated color (usually without being explicitly aware of a distinction), so we preempt their confusion. Nothing is miscommunicated, as the reader gets what they expect, and the image serves its purpose perfectly well in illustrating the article. (It is not the goal of this article to explain concepts in photography and optics to the reader, as it is an article about the planet Earth.) As per the landmarks, it's roughly the same idea: most people know what Africa looks like, so we are not ensuring the illustration is adequately explained by explicitly adding that. Remsense ‥  论 23:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm wrong File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg is the original, and is used at the The Blue Marble article. The original is the one that should be used here, not a remaster with vastly different coloring, and have exchanged the two. Thanks CherrySoda for putting attention on this concern. Randy Kryn ( talk) 01:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Haven't we discussed this before? My understanding is we use the calibrated version because it is itself the most representative version, and therefore appropriate to represent Earth to an extent a calibrated photo normally wouldn't be Remsense ‥  论 02:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC) I was totally upside-down about this. These are the times I wish we could lock specific parts of specific articles from editing. Remsense ‥  论 02:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, just a question of clarification since I saw the photos get changed. Is the remaster of Blue Marble less accurate than the original? CherrySoda ( talk) 03:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I would characterize it as original research. I'm sure it's well-founded, but everything we do and show on Wikipedia should be based around what reliable sources do, and not our own investigation and results. Remsense ‥  论 03:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Remsense, what? I'm absolutely shocked that Wikipedia can be so bureaucratic, to the point of blinding themselves with their conviction. It is not certain that the original Blue Marble picture has a more accurate than the recalibrated picture. That's because back then, NASA doesn't care about the true color of planets.

If you have taken a second to look at the description of File:The Blue Marble (remastered).jpg, there is a note that said "The end of most film magazines used on the Apollo missions include a photograph, presumably taken on earth, of a "KODAK Color Control Patch" on a chart containing mission and camera data. This color chart was used to calibrate the above photograph to better approximate real-world colors." Although it might be better that the author linked this in the description, the author also uploaded File:The Blue Marble White Balancing.jpg and linked to the calibration chart he uses to recalibrate the image. This is not original research. This is just adjusting the raw values of a picture with a known reference point. WhatisMars ( talk) 20:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, the actual calibration work was original research, based on a synthesis of sources but coming to a conclusion not found in any of the sources. That is a pretty straightforward reading of the policy. Remsense ‥  论 21:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Huh? Color calibration is a very common work that's done in... basically everywhere in photography? You should take a look at Color chart article and this image to see that this process is objective. WhatisMars ( talk) 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You're not wrong here, it's just that this is a very special case. Given that the image is so particular, the color grading amounts to a claim in itself; by having a given version we are making a positive claim that it is correct or authoritative, not merely a technical calculation. Remsense ‥  论 21:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are misrepresenting me. If you taken a look at the ISS video feed of the Earth, you can clearly see that the ocean doesn't have a deep blue color nor that the vegetation is a dark moss color. Here's two videos of Earth in space: from the ISS and from the Polaris Dawn mission. This might not be the best calibrated picture that we can make, but this is the most faithful to observations made by a regular camera. WhatisMars ( talk) 21:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that, I really do. Like I said, I do not dispute that the calibrated version is what it purports itself to be! It is closer to what the photographer saw with their eyes while capturing the photo. But we are making a claim when we present The Blue Marble specifically: we are using it because it is such an iconic image, which creates this conundrum contrasting with what we normally want to enforce for good reason with MOS:ASTRO. I wish NASA would tweet "hey, good job" about the calibration—that would make this much easier in my mind. I know how silly, particular, and missing-the-point all this probably sounds to you, so I appreciate you engaging with me in good faith about it. Remsense ‥  论 21:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I appreciate that you are writing your rationale in more detail rather than just handwaving policy pages to the reader, unlike most Wikipedians here. Still, I still disagree with you because the Kodak color chart is designed so that the original color image can be adjusted to the correct, faithful value. This is not a matter of "originality", this is a matter of correctness. In the past, it's virtually impossible to adjust a developed picture in the film so that it would match with the charts and plus this is not a priority of NASA at the time, but now, we have the means to do so. WhatisMars ( talk) 21:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Plus, saying that "NASA would tweet "hey, good job" about the calibration—that would make this much easier in my mind" does not mean that you making an attempt to avoid original research, it just means that you are lazily accepting what the authorities are saying what is true or not. NASA is not the authority about color calibration and they have a poor track record on keeping the planet's color accurate (see this pic for example, where the Sun is orange and Venus's atmosphere is gone). I suggest you to read this blog at [1] to understand why true color is important and why relying on space agencies might not be a good idea. WhatisMars ( talk) 21:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed! I am trying to avoid saying what is true to a considerable degree, as one of our core content policies is verifiability, not truth. It's a real pain much of the time, but it's often our only avenue for constructively building a tertiary knowledge source meant for everyone in the world. Remsense ‥  论 21:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts allows for color-corrected images. Adjusting the colors of an image does not amount to photo manipulation and is permitted on Wikipedia. Aaron1a12 ( talk) 18:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that negates any of what I've said above, if you consider the actual reasons and don't defer to a summary checklist. I also think it's rather tendentious to insist on the inclusion of a color-corrected version alongside the original on The Blue Marble: this puts into focus a clear case where color correction is functionally OR and nothing more. Remsense ‥  论 01:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add fun facts at the end of the wiki Coolg42 ( talk) 16:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:TRIVIA RudolfRed ( talk) 23:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

In the whole "Natural History" section there are four artist's impressions. The "After formation" section is illustrated by the "orange dot", a speculative view of how the Earth looked in the Archaean. There is already another artist's impression of the Archaean in the "Origin of life and evolution" section. There used to be an image there of actual rocks that displayed just some of the evidence used by geologists to disentangle Earth's history, shown here,

I would like editors to consider reinstating this image to this section. Mikenorton ( talk) 10:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)