Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Earth/Archive 15) (bot |
Removing expired RFC template. |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
Upon attempting to make these obvious changes, I was stopped and need consensus as a result. '''[[User:ImprovedWikiImprovment|<span style="color: darkgreen">IWI</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment|<span style="color: purple">chat</span>]]'') 22:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC) |
Upon attempting to make these obvious changes, I was stopped and need consensus as a result. '''[[User:ImprovedWikiImprovment|<span style="color: darkgreen">IWI</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment|<span style="color: purple">chat</span>]]'') 22:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{rfc|sci|rfcid=A52D53F}} |
|||
As mentioned above, the mention of Earth in the lead image caption is unnecessary, especially considering the guideline [[WP:CAP]] "without detailing the obvious". '''[[User:ImprovedWikiImprovment|<span style="color: darkgreen">IWI</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment|<span style="color: purple">chat</span>]]'') 04:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC) |
As mentioned above, the mention of Earth in the lead image caption is unnecessary, especially considering the guideline [[WP:CAP]] "without detailing the obvious". '''[[User:ImprovedWikiImprovment|<span style="color: darkgreen">IWI</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment|<span style="color: purple">chat</span>]]'') 04:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 05:01, 1 January 2019
Earth is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Earth is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2010. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Earth is 4.54 billion-years-old
MODERATORS: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth 2601:580:100:901E:35C8:FCCA:1910:57A6 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- That's what it says in both articles. What's the problem? Dbfirs 21:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
"Earth formed over 4.5 billion years ago." is found in the Introduction. It needs to be changed to Earth is 4.54 billion-years-old. 2601:580:100:901E:35C8:FCCA:1910:57A6 (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- A more precise number is included in the "Formation" section - the current text is fine for the lead section. Mikenorton (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I think a mention of “Earth” should be omitted per WP:CAP, which states that the subject of the picture should be clearly identified without stating the obvious. As is clear, it is obvious that the image is of Earth for two reasons:
- It is the top image on the “Earth” article depicting a planet; what else would it be.
- Everyone (except people in undiscovered tribes) is aware that this is the appearance of Earth.
Upon attempting to make these obvious changes, I was stopped and need consensus as a result. IWI (chat) 22:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC) As mentioned above, the mention of Earth in the lead image caption is unnecessary, especially considering the guideline WP:CAP "without detailing the obvious". IWI (chat) 04:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Survey
- REMOVE. It is unnecessary duplicity. The topic is obvious. All stylebooks admonish against repetition, including WP:CAP. If it were standalone (i.e., "Photo: Earth"). then I'd leave it because it needs some caption. However, it is not standalone. The caption is "The Blue Marble photograph", and "The Blue Marble" is a famous photograph. It makes no more sense to add "Earth" here than it does to write the caption: "The Mona Lisa painting of a woman." In fact, the Mona Lisa page is quite a good argument as the photo caption is "Mona Lisa", not "The Mona Lisa painting." The subject is evident from the page. —Kriceslo (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- REMOVE As above, unnecessary duplicity, as subject is the Earth, and is just about impossible to mistake for anything else. WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Removeper WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS — JFG talk 18:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- The one below. Almost a textbook example of a caption: it clearly, concisely and usefully describes the circumstances around the photo. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 22:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
Replacement proposal
If there is agreement to remove "Earth" from this caption, I would suggest rephrasing it thus:
The Blue Marble, first photograph of the whole planet, taken during the Apollo 17 journey to the Moon in 1972
Opinions or other suggestions welcome. — JFG talk 22:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The Blue Marble, the first photograph of the entire planet, was taken by Apollo 17 en route to the moon in 1972.
- EEng 23:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is moving in the right direction, but calling it an image of the whole/entire planet is not entirely accurate. Among the missing bits are Europe, the Americas, the Arctic, and most of Asia. Best I can come up with just now is "the first comprehensive photograph of the planet". "Limb-to-limb" would be accurate, but jargon... Just plain Bill (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Limbs are definitely out, I'd say. How about "first full-view photograph of the planet" (which, I suspect, doesn't really mean anything and is therefore not wrong) or something like that? EEng 23:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- That would work. It's pretty much along the lines of what I was going for with "comprehensive." Unobstructed, uncropped...? Just plain Bill (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Limbs are definitely out, I'd say. How about "first full-view photograph of the planet" (which, I suspect, doesn't really mean anything and is therefore not wrong) or something like that? EEng 23:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is moving in the right direction, but calling it an image of the whole/entire planet is not entirely accurate. Among the missing bits are Europe, the Americas, the Arctic, and most of Asia. Best I can come up with just now is "the first comprehensive photograph of the planet". "Limb-to-limb" would be accurate, but jargon... Just plain Bill (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
EEng 01:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)The Blue Marble, the first full-view photograph of the planet, was taken by Apollo 17 en route to the moon in 1972.
- This Apollo guy was a stellar photographer! — JFG talk 02:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Astronauts en route to the Moon in 1972 captured The Blue Marble, the first full-view photograph of the planet.
- Let us not distract the reader with the Apollo flight number. — JFG talk 02:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The Blue Marble, the first full-view photograph of the planet, was captured by astronauts en route to the Moon in 1972.
- Marble first. EEng 02:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent! — JFG talk 02:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- My work is done here. Up! UP!! AND AWAY!!! EEng 03:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent! — JFG talk 02:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the latter most. IWI (chat) 11:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- I guess I'm too late to sway opinion toward keeping "the Earth" in the caption, but it strikes me that you could've said that, instead of "the planet", and been slightly more concise here, if conciseness was a goal. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. Come to think of it "the planet" is a periphrase for "Earth", and does not necessarily help readers. I would support amending the caption to:
The Blue Marble, the first full-view photograph of Earth, was captured by astronauts en route to the Moon in 1972.
- Not sure whether "of Earth" or "of the Earth" would be best grammatically. @EEng: What do you think? — JFG talk 09:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Or perhaps "the first full-view photograph of planet Earth"? That sounds a bit more grandiose… — JFG talk 09:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have to say that, while I generally take a scorched-earth approach to concision, I realized later that once you say the planet, which you pretty much have to do if you're going to say first full-view photograph of, then you may as well go back to the Earth i.e. the last proposal above. I'd skip planet Earth -- too fancy. EEng 16:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- ... first full-view photograph of Earth... I like it. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Or perhaps "the first full-view photograph of planet Earth"? That sounds a bit more grandiose… — JFG talk 09:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. Come to think of it "the planet" is a periphrase for "Earth", and does not necessarily help readers. I would support amending the caption to:
The inner most layer core
The inner core is made mostlyof iron. At 5,000-6,000°(9,000-10,800°F), it's about as scorching as the sun. There is so much pressure at the centre of Earth that, despite the heat, the inner core is solid. INTELLIGENT 1234 (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK. The article more or less says the same thing already. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
"Astronomical object"
There has been some dispute about whether the Earth can be categorized as an "astronomical object", so I thought I'd bring it here, just to bring any dispute out into the open. My reasoning is this: the Earth is a planet, and planets, considered as a class in general, are astronomical objects. The Earth is clearly a special case of such an object because we live here, but I don't believe this in any way contradicts its membership of the general class of astronomical objects.
Moreover, as Joe Kress has said, the Earth is indeed an astronomical object known since antiquity; the concept of the Earth as a planet at the center of the Universe was described by the ancient Greeks: see Geocentric model. -- The Anome (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is not quite that simple. The ancient Greek geocentric model certainly considered the Earth to be the centre of the Universe, but it certainly did not consider it to be a planet. The categorisation may still be justified as there were ancient heliocentrists such as Aristarchus of Samos, but I am certainly not an expert on the history of science in classical antiquity, and I would rather have someone who knows more than me on the topic weigh in. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that Earth, as a planet, is an astronomical object. But, when you say "astronomical object known since antiquity", you cannot categorize it as an astronomical object. It is like saying "force of gravity was known to ancients", just because they could see things falling down. But even if you persist, I still have problem with "known since antiquity" thing. You come to know about something, that you didn't know previously. Ancients lived on Earth and as matter of fact knew, by default, of its existence. As such "known" doesn't apply. I couldn't find where Joe Kress has said " Earth is indeed an astronomical object known since antiquity", but even if he did, it cannot be used as authority. It would be better if you present his argument. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Although I haven't found the exact page, I suspect sufficient detail is provided by J. L. E. Dreyer, History of the Planetary Systems from Thales to Kepler (1906). — Joe Kress (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- My argument is in my summary: The ancient Greeks, thus antiquity, knowingly placed the Earth at the center of and as a part of the Universe, thus astronomical, and described its size, thus regarding it as a spherical object, hence an "astronomical object known since antiquity". — Joe Kress (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is your own extrapolation. "Earth was at center" is entirely different from "it was known as astronomical object". As I have discussed above, and on my talk page, and in my earlier revert, Earth is not astronomical object by definition in this sense. They considered "astronomical" anything that was beyond Earth. Earth was not beyond Earth. Earth was Earth to them, not a planet. Just acknowledging Earth's existence, which they had to off course, makes it astronomical?? AhmadLX (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with AhmadLX. "Astronomy" implies study of the stars, and to me "astronomical object" known "since antiquity" would seem to apply to those bodies that the ancients could observe without the aid of a telescope: the seven "planets" of antiquity (sun, moon, Mercury ... Saturn) and those stars bright enough to be seen without magnification. In other words, it is useful to make such distinctions, as opposed to trying to somewhat guess whether Earth was considered a planet, since it would only be conceptually considered as such. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Geminus states (Dreyer, p. 131) that "astronomy ... makes known the arrangement of the heavenly bodies, it investigates the figure and size and distance of earth and sun and moon, the eclipses and conjunctions of stars and the quality and quantity of their motions; ..." So he includes Earth, its figure (shape) and size and distance, in astronomy, thus Earth is an astronomical object according to Geminus, an ancient Greek. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with AhmadLX. "Astronomy" implies study of the stars, and to me "astronomical object" known "since antiquity" would seem to apply to those bodies that the ancients could observe without the aid of a telescope: the seven "planets" of antiquity (sun, moon, Mercury ... Saturn) and those stars bright enough to be seen without magnification. In other words, it is useful to make such distinctions, as opposed to trying to somewhat guess whether Earth was considered a planet, since it would only be conceptually considered as such. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is your own extrapolation. "Earth was at center" is entirely different from "it was known as astronomical object". As I have discussed above, and on my talk page, and in my earlier revert, Earth is not astronomical object by definition in this sense. They considered "astronomical" anything that was beyond Earth. Earth was not beyond Earth. Earth was Earth to them, not a planet. Just acknowledging Earth's existence, which they had to off course, makes it astronomical?? AhmadLX (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that Earth, as a planet, is an astronomical object. But, when you say "astronomical object known since antiquity", you cannot categorize it as an astronomical object. It is like saying "force of gravity was known to ancients", just because they could see things falling down. But even if you persist, I still have problem with "known since antiquity" thing. You come to know about something, that you didn't know previously. Ancients lived on Earth and as matter of fact knew, by default, of its existence. As such "known" doesn't apply. I couldn't find where Joe Kress has said " Earth is indeed an astronomical object known since antiquity", but even if he did, it cannot be used as authority. It would be better if you present his argument. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Joe Kress has it exactly right. "Astronomical" means "relating to astronomy" (see dictionary definitions), and astronomy studies (among other things) the relationship between the Earth and other celestial bodies. As a subject of astronomical study, the Earth is therefore an astronomical object. Add the Geminus citation, and the case is clear. -- The Anome (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Modern dictionary definitions aren't likely to tell us what the ancients thought, and Geminus talks of "...figur[ing] size and distance..." without actually saying that Earth is an astronomical object, which Aristotelian physics would preclude one from believing. According to Eduard Jan Dijksterhuis, in The Mechanization of the World Picture, part 1, chapter 79:
...the idea that the earth might quite well be in motion was certainly not beyond the intellectual horizon of Greek astronomers, but it never had more than the status of an interesting conceptual possibility.
- Dreyer discussed at least two instances where the ancient Greeks attributed to Earth a characteristic of an astronomical body: Aristotle stated (pp. 118–119) Earth must be a sphere because it casts a circular shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse - casting a shadow is a characteristic of an astronomical body (if it doesn't produce its own light). Aristarchus of Samos proposed [pp. 136–139) that the Sun and stars were fixed and that Earth rotated once a day and revolved around the Sun once a year in the middle of the zodiac, what we call the ecliptic (see his note) - movement, either rotation or revolution, is a modern characteristic of an astronomical body (fixed at the center of the Universe is not acceptable by modern standards, although fixed was required for Earth by most ancient Greeks). — Joe Kress (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I couldn't give a rat's ass what crusty old Greeks thought, Earth is a planet, and planets are astronomical objects. People knew Earth existed in antiquity. So it's an astronomical object known since antiquity. End of story. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Cooler than liquid Helium ;) Everything in existance has a beginning → Universe exists → Universe had a beginning (Big Bang) → Ancients knew Universe existed → Ancients knew Big Bang happened. Master stroke.
One day you guys will hit -273.15C.Best of luck ;) AhmadLX (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Cooler than liquid Helium ;) Everything in existance has a beginning → Universe exists → Universe had a beginning (Big Bang) → Ancients knew Universe existed → Ancients knew Big Bang happened. Master stroke.
- I couldn't give a rat's ass what crusty old Greeks thought, Earth is a planet, and planets are astronomical objects. People knew Earth existed in antiquity. So it's an astronomical object known since antiquity. End of story. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Earth's polar circumference
Flatening of the Earth and its Equatorial Radius are given/measured values. They are used to calculate Polar Radius and Polar Circumference. f = (a-b)/a, where a - Equatorial Radius, b - Polar Radius and f - flatening b = a*(1-f) And Polar Circumference = Pi*2*b Instead, the value of Polar Circumference is taken from experimental data and it is contradicory with other values. My proposition: Eq. Radius and flatening should be taken from external sources and the rest should be calculated. Another proposistion: on other wikipedia pages about this topic, the Polar Circumference is not listed, so it removes the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.64.178.233 (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)