Talk:Earth/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Name

The article states that the use of the definite article, the Earth, dates from Early Middle English, however I think it is worth noting the potential influence of Arabic on this usage, given the major translation of Ptolemy's Geographia, Kitab Surat al-Arth, in the 9th century CE (given Middle English commences in the 11th century CE). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.12.32.244 (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

fragment sentence in first paragraph

Maybe I am misreading this sentence but it seems to be an incomplete sentence? "Earth's gravity interacts with other objects in space, the Moon, Earth's only natural satellite." I think it should be worded more clearly.

 Done thanks for identifying that. I restored the previous version. @Sbznpoe: what do you think of changing the sentence to "Earth's gravity interacts with other objects in space – most noticeably the Moon, which is Earth's only natural satellite."? VQuakr (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it. I think I accidently left it so the sentence was incomplete, so sorry about that. Sbznpoe (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Analyzing gravity often starts with the simplified case of two bodies. With that in mind it's not wrong to say that both bodies participate in an "interaction" such as a planet orbiting its star. Ocean tides are the product of gravitational interaction between Earth, Moon, and Sun, with spring and neap tides having been noticed by coastal dwellers for centuries, at least. I'd like to keep the Sun in that sentence, something like:

"Earth's gravity interacts with other objects in space – most noticeably the Moon, which is Earth's only natural satellite, and the Sun around which the Earth orbits."

Just plain Bill (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know...I'm not sure if Earth's gravity affects the Sun that much though. I'll keep thinking about it. Sbznpoe (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The earth pulls on the sun just as much as the sun pulls on the earth... VQuakr (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

but the sun is far less affected by earth's gravity than the sun's gravity affects earth... Sbznpoe (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Magnetic dipole moment

Irrespective the the citation, something is pretty weird about the magnitude of the "global" magnetic dipole moment in the chapter 'Magnetic Field'. Article reads in part: "...with global magnetic dipole moment of 7.91 × 1015 T m3.[177]". The units are also incorrect. Per the Wikipedia article on magnetic moment, units should be A/m^2, Nm/T, or J/T. The link to the citation wouldn't work, so I looked elsewhere and got a different number in the CORRECT units; 7.92E22 A/m^2. Might want to take a look at that... 2600:6C52:7900:33F:459:B931:29:9C02 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. Both are correct but serve different purposes. The figure cited in the article is part of the spherical components used to describe a dipole field. It is k₀ = 𝜇₀m/4π = 7.91×10¹⁵ Tm³, which includes the dipole moment m. See Earth's dipole field, p. 14. Unfortunately, the dipole moment decreases constantly, so the article needs the year for the cited value. Changes in earth's dipole, p. 521 specifies m = 7.79×10²² Am² at year 2000, decreasing nearly 6% per century. This or a similar dipole moment belongs in the article. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Future section: estimates of end of photosynthesis and runaway greenhouse effect

To further explain my edit just now, the text read:

The Earth's increasing surface temperature will accelerate the inorganic carbon cycle, reducing CO₂ concentration to levels lethally low for plants (10 ppm for C4 photosynthesis) in approximately 500–900 Mys. The lack of vegetation will result in the loss of oxygen in the atmosphere, making animal life impossible. After another billion years all surface water will have disappeared and the mean global temperature will reach 70 °C (158 °F). From that point, the Earth is expected to be habitable for another 500 Ma, possibly up to 2.3 Ga if nitrogen is removed from the atmosphere.

So after animal life is impossible and surface water has disappeared, the Earth will be habitable for another 500 My? Looking at the sources, most dates are from present which explains that conundrum, but I also note that they conflict somewhat. The BBC article references an AAAS presentation by Kasting that is credible but I can't find in his list of publications.[1] Kasting in the BBC article agrees with 500My end of photosynthesis in Britt (both from 2000). The 900 My figure does not appear in the Britt web piece, but is mentioned in Li et al's PNAS paper, along with a lower limit than 500 My.

This could do with an expert eye and checking against Future of Earth. Goldblatt 2013 [2] puts a runaway limit at 282 W m−2 (?) while Leconte 2013 seems to have raised it to 375 W m−2 [3] Views on future atmospheric and biospheric conditions may diverge correspondingly? --Cedders^tk 19:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Proposed amendment of description to 'Mostly harmless'

The page description of the Earth currently reads 'Third planet from the Sun in the Solar System'. Whilst I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for frivolity, I propose that the administrative community considers amending the page description to 'Mostly harmless', the description of the Earth given in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as an approved Easter egg referencing and celebrating the unique link between that book and Wikipedia. The argument against doing this is that Wikipedia is no place for jokes. However, this seems like a special case. gutterheart (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, not even "special cases", though if you could find a WP:Reliable source that has published your joke, we might possibly mention it. Dbfirs 13:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

mean anomaly

A figure is listed for the mean anomaly. Any discrete value of this quantity is associated with a particular instant, varies in a year from 0 degrees to 359.99 degrees. I don't understand its inclusion in a list of constants. 97.122.198.79 (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC) 2019 Aug 16 14:20 UT Steve Stevenson

The note (n 1) at the top of infobox states: "All astronomical quantities vary, both secularly and periodically. The quantities given are the values at the instant J2000.0 of the secular variation, ignoring all periodic variations." — Joe Kress (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

References in the lead

Since this is a FA article, I suggest removing the references in the lead in order to meet MOS:CITELEAD since the infomation in the lead should already be referenced in the rest of the article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Note on the source in header?

There's a sentence fragment in the last paragraph on the opening section, which seemingly came from a reference (?). Would be nice for someone with edit privileges to fix, cheers. NeptNarwhals (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed - thanks for the note. Vsmith (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Eaht" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eaht. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Searingjet (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2019

ably in a "change X to Y" format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blan 80.90.174.70 (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 09:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019

You should the following sentence "Earth is the densest planet in the Solar System and the largest and most massive of the four rocky planets" to "Earth is the densest planet in the Solar System and the largest and most massive of the four terrestrial planets." Because it sounds more accurate and mature The Darth Revan (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The terms are synonymous. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's what the words mean that matters. You would just be saying that Earth is like Earth. Dbfirs 14:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Longitude of ascending node

This page gives the longitude of the ascending node as -11.26064°, which (when adding 360°) is equivalent to 348.73936°, quoting a NASA Fact Sheet (which itself probably quotes from the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, 1992)

However, the article about Earth's orbit gives instead 174.9°, citing Simon et al 1994, which is consistent with values obtained from Meeus’s Astronomical Algorithms, Second Edition. Very different. Even if we remove 180° from this value (supposing it’s a matter of point of view; Earth or Sun), we get 168.73936°, which is still off by aout 5.3°.

The only thing I can see which could explain this difference is that the Explanatory Supplement gives values for the 'Earth-Moon barycenter' (EMB) instead of the Earth itself. (On page 700 of the Explanatory Supplement, a value of 75° 46′ is given as the longitude of the ascending node of the Sun, further confusing the issue.)

Would anyone have more information, please? Thanks in advance!

CielProfond (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020

earthis the 90th planet from the sun not the third 96.51.33.195 (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 03:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Age of the Earth based on the recessing rate of the Moon

The Age of the Earth can be calculated from the recession rate of the Moon away from the Earth. The recession rate must be center to center, not surface to surface. Lasers put the surface to Surface recession rate at 38.2 mm per year. The center to surface of the Earth average was 4.16 mm in the 2003 recalibration of the Global Positioning System. They later decided to make it zero by selecting 157 reference points straddling zero. The Moon is small, around 1.13 mm or less. The total is about 43.49 mm per year.

The Change in the distance divided by the total distance is proportional to the change in the time divided by the 2 times the time, is proportional to the change in the mass divided by the mass.

The Monkey wrench comes in that the Earth accelerates the Moon to a higher orbit while decelerating itself to a lower orbit, while remaining colinear with the E-M Barycenter. The Earth spirals inward about 0.5 mm per year. This cuts the distance down to just under 43 mm per year increase in the distance. The total distance is 384,405 Km, which when converted to millimeters is 384,405,000,000 mm. So 43/ 384,405,000,000 is about one part in 9 billion. Cut this in half and you get the age at around 4.5 billion.

The problem with this method is that it relies on average growth rates that are highly variable depending upon which arm of the Milky Way Galaxie we are passing thru at any given time period, and the expansion of the Universe modifies the apparent growth rate as well.

MWC63.225.17.34 (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Creationism’s views are not included.

I was reading through the ‘earth’ page. unsurprisingly, I was dissapointed because it only shows the beliefs of evolutionism. I am not here to dispute with anyone, however if Wikipedia wants to be a place where you can find information about everything, this should include a header for creationism’s opinion about the age of the earth. In this case there would be many more things that would have to be changed to make the site more inclusive for different pages. Not just creationism beliefs but others too, and in that also the different headers of 7 day creation, the gap theory, etc. There is enough proof to show that the world isn’t millions of years old and there are people who believe that to be the truth. So, if you want wikipedia to be a place where you can find accurate knowledge on different topics, include the different theories to make your case more plausible.

For ideas on how to make this happen, watch as an example: dr Kent Hovind, age of the eart and his creation seminars. Lovenialler79 (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Responded to at Talk:Evolution#Creationism_isn’t_mentioned_in_the_age_of_the_earth. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, will this ever stop? Drmies (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Not until American Christendom finally gets that right-wing Evangelical Conservatism is really a political ploy to replace Christ's teachings with racial and sexual hatred by way of plastering over the Apostle's Creed with neo-gnosticism, Mammon worship, Caesar worship, and other blasphemies. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Haha, tell me how you really feel. I was at one of those places this morning, and I can confirm that they drive really big cars. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you get a Mercedes Benz? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Say it with me now: 1, 2, 3, edit filter! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Fundamentally I think the primary issue with including creationism you would thereby also need to include every religion / major religion. However I do think it is a let down that Religions are not covered in more detail. Evolution I am sorry to say it is real, we observe cell mutating all the time and domestication proves without a doubt that evolution is real, there is no such things about "beliefs on evolutionism", although Evolution does require faith that the universe is really real, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Newtonian Physics also require that but still undoubtly say they are real, there is no debate as to Evolution being real or not, just as there is no denying that the world is round. With that in mind I would be fine with seeing a "Creation Stories" section in the "Cultural and historical viewpoint". Vallee01 (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the section is perfectly well written; no more, no less. IW. (talk)

Sentence construction

Earth orbits around the Sun in 365.256 days, a period known as an Earth sidereal year. During this time, Earth rotates about its axis about 365.256 times.

- Isn't there any better way to rephrase the sentences? IW. (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The statement is wrong because Earth rotates on its axis 366.256 times during a sidereal year. One of these rotations accounts for Earth's revolution around the Sun during the year. The length of the sidereal year is still 365.256 solar days. See Solar and Sidereal Time. This extra rotation is explained in a note. The statement and note were correctly added to the article in 2007, using 366.26 times. During 2017 it was changed by several editors to 365.26 times, even though the note never changed. I have corrected this one rotation error. However, this doesn't help your wording request. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Because I had to clarify the sentences, they are now substantially different, so they may no longer need any additional rewrite. — Joe Kress (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

"Big Globe" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Big Globe should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Big Globe until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"Earf" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Earf. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Tzephania 1

About the future of the Earth please read Tzephania 1 and take some conclusions'92.80.250.118 (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Astronomical designation

Shouldn’t there be a mention that according to the astronomical designation of labelling planets, Earth would be called Sol d? 86.93.208.34 (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Please God, no.Achar Sva (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Life processes

[[--Binaya35 (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)File:Life processes|thumb

life processes living plants perform various vital life activities.

Biological processes are those processes that are vital for an organism to live, and that shape its capacities for interacting with its environment. Biological processes are made of many chemical reactions or other events that are involved in the persistence and transformation of life forms.[1] Metabolism and homeostasis are examples.

Regulation of biological processes occurs when any process is modulated in its frequency, rate or extent. Biological processes are regulated by many means; examples include the control of gene expression, protein modification or interaction with a protein or substrate molecule.

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors. Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis. Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms. Interaction between organisms. the processes by which an organism has an observable effect on another organism of the same or different species. Also: cellular differentiation, fermentation, fertilisation, germination, tropism, hybridisation, metamorphosis, morphogenesis, photosynthesis, transpiration.

"Whole World" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Whole World. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#Whole World until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 04:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"Terra (Planetry Science)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Terra (Planetry Science). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#Terra (Planetry Science) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

capitalization of northern and southern hemispheres

This does seem to be done sometimes in the literature, but it's a clear violation of our MOS and as silly as would be capitalization of the Earth's crust. --Espoo (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Etymology has nothing to do with Hebrew/Arabic names?

I wonder why the names Eretz (ארץ) or Areḍ (أرض) are not included in the Etymology section... Has this connection ever been studied before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfusedEnoch (talk • contribs) 09:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@ConfusedEnoch: See False cognate. The words you listed are Semitic, while Earth goes back to the Indo-European root *h₁er-. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

As the article explains, we have cognates in every Germanic language, which according to the Indo-Semitic languages hypothesis, could potentially be why the Semitic and English names for "Earth" are extremely close.

Either way, I get that they're considered false cognates at the moment. Thanks for the answer. --ConfusedEnoch (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing AU for orbital measurements

All the other planets in our solar system include AU when listing Aphelion / Perihelion. I'm not sure why these are omitted for earth.

These can be derived from the measurements in kilometers, by dividing by 149597870.7 km (sourced from the wiki article for Astronomical unit).

Unfortunately editing appears locked, so I cannot update this myself.

2402:800:6311:752A:CCF1:B0C4:68A2:AC2 (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

References

"By 2020"? We're now in August

> By 2020, 60% of the world's population is expected to be living in urban, rather than rural, areas.[216]

Can someone make that "As of 2020, 60% of the world's population is estimated to be living in urban, rather than rural, areas.[216]

98.113.134.196 (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested change not done because 2020 is not supported by the cited source reference. The source actually states: "By the year 2030, 60 percent of the world's population is projected to live in urban areas". Therefore, I have changed the Wikipedia article text to report what the cited source claims. GeoWriter (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It says in the article that a sidereal year has 366.256 days. Is that a typo, originally meaning 365.256 days?

Becuase I'm fairly certain that we'd notice if only one extra day every four years would still mean that all seasons shift three days every year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius Sommer (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a typo; but, if correct, it would mean a shift of three days every four years. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Wait, the number is given in terms of "sidereal days", not solar days. In that case, it's correct, or closer to being correct. See Sidereal time. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

Snoopy424 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

xyxyxylibby is bae

 Not done please make clear what you want changed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September, 2020

Would it be possible to add demoynms for the planet? Such as Earthling, Terran, and such. H.J. Fleischmann (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC) Fleischmann

@H.J. Fleishcmann: we already have an article on that topic: Earthling, which includes the other demonyms. I added a link to it in the "See also" section in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Zircon and keeping the article simple

A request to keep the article easy to understand, so that geology n00bs as me can still understand it :). My association with the word zircon are these fictional creatures: https://aliens.fandom.com/wiki/Zirkonian. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added that they are minerals. I'm not always the best at avoiding technical language, but I'll see what I can do. Mikenorton (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Does this article still meet FA requirements?

I think the article doesn't really meet the FA requirements anymore. A list of issues:

• Too much of the article is too difficult (not well-written). This article should be understandable to a 16-year old. Yes, I'm struggling as a physics graduate.
  • the very first paragraph is too difficult. Per WP:ONEDOWN, words like sidereal day should definitely be avoided.
  • Further examples of things that may be too difficult include sentences like: . At the equator of the magnetic field, the magnetic-field strength at the surface is 3.05×10−5 T, with a magnetic dipole moment of 7.79×1022 Am2 at epoch 2000, decreasing nearly 6% per century
  • No idea what mean solar time is meant to be.

• Many of the key facts are outdated (not well-researched):
  • for instance, the article now states that the oldest material ever found in the solar system is 4.56 BYA, while a 2010 study found an older piece: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/8/100823-oldest-solar-system-two-million-years-older-science/. Dunno if that is the oldest one still.
  • Future section is full of research that has specific years and often based on one old primary source.
  • The final brightness of our Sun (5000 times as bright) is referenced to 1993 article. Still up-to-date?
  • Human population in 2050 is estimated using 2009 UN numbers
  • The amount of irrigated land is given for 1993

• Quite some unsourced paragraphs (not well-researched)

• I don't think individual weather events are due (summary style). The article now mentions a very controversial heat record, without giving context but it's likely an artefact of poor measuring. I think both temperature records should be deleted.

It would be lovely if we can keep this important article FA. I may bring it to FAR, but hope to find some people interested in improving it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any of these prose issues. The article is quite easy to understand. Where does this 16-year-old rule come from? Graham Beards (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Graham Beards, thanks for your reaction. The 16-year old 'rule' is my interpretation of WP:ONEDOWN, from the WP:Make technical articles understandable guideline. This is a very basic article, and will definitely be studied by 18 year olds, so the best way to make sure they understand it, is to write it for an even younger audience. I feel this article has a very variable difficulty, and certainly has sections that are very easy to understand as well. Further examples of things I did not understand are:

• This causes secular variation of the main field
• Charged particles are contained within the magnetosphere; the plasmasphere is defined by low-energy particles that essentially follow magnetic field lines as Earth rotates;[172][173] the ring current is defined by medium-energy particles that drift relative to the geomagnetic field, but with paths that are still dominated by the magnetic field,[174] and the Van Allen radiation belt are formed by high-energy particles whose motion is essentially random, but otherwise contained by the magnetosphere.[170][175]. The sentence should be split in two, and maybe there is some grammar error in the penultimate clause.
• Earth's rotation period relative to the precessing or moving mean March equinox, misnamed its sidereal day, is 86,164.0905 seconds of mean solar time (UT1) (23h 56m 4.0905s). Why is it misnamed, what is the March equinox (took some thinking that this is the global name for spring equinox), why is earth rotation period measured relative to the equinox, why is UT1 relevant? Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I shall fix that right now. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. Sorry, my time for education is coming. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – I have initiated the formal FAR to fix the problems raised by this discussion. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – For unambiguous meaning, data specification is essential. In areas dealing with astronomical information differentiation between sidereal and solar time is necessary for accurate data. Similar issue with the complaint about magnetic-field data. Without these specifications, such data becomes unusable. Note that the introduction section is reasonably simplified and deeper data (and terms) are limited to other sections. A mix of higher and lower-level info makes the page useful to a broader audience. (REQUEST:) I would like to see all usages of less-known terms linked to their related wiki articles, but do not know how to do so. Finally, the concern with obsolete and/or inaccurate is valid. See separate entry below OldDadOfFive (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Problems with Physical data

First discovered when discrepancies were noticed in the specification of mass (of Earth). It is listed in the first sidebar under "Physical characteristics" as 5.97237×1024 kg. (cited) (and approximated under Chemical composition). However the "Earth Mass" article says 5.9722×1024 kg (cited) and the "Earth physical characteristics tables" article says 5.98x1024 kg. (no citation?) There is a similar discrepancy between the mass of the moon listed in the moon section as 7.349×1022 kg (no citation?) and in the "Moon" article as 7.342×1022 kg (cited) I am sure there are many more examples in physical (and other?) data. As the cited external sources also vary, this should not be a serious problem. However, it seems like Wikipedia should be more consistent, either by consolidating all values and citations, or by mentioning the variance and citing multiple variant sources. As I am new to wiki "corrections" I will understand if this post is deemed not-up-to-standards. OldDadOfFive (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldDadOfFive (talk • contribs) 00:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It Seems like your concerns about the article. Can be addressed your post seems up to standards, its a valid concern what you brought up.Plunging Bear (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Structure of article

I've been playing with the structure of the article, breaking out the atmosphere and the hydrosphere, based on the emphasis other overview sources give the atmosphere and to a lesser extent the hydrosphere. I'm not yet satisfied with the structure of the article though, especially how we describe the human influence on the earth. Problems I have with the current structure:

1. the section on human geography is a bit weird: the section heading is the name of a scientific discipline, and I'm not sure how the relevance of each paragraph was determined. Maybe this entire section would fit better in our article about world, with a summary under the section about habitability.
   • Specifically, the text about states and the UN seems undue, as well as the most northernmost and southernmost settlement
   • similarly, the spacefaring of individual humans is probably a better fit for our world article.
2. For the sake of making the article easier, the section habitability could be renamed life on earth.
3. Both the surface subsection and the human geography section talk about agriculture. Should we choose?
4. Both the shape and the surface subsection write about extreme points. I feel that this belongs to shape, right?
5. I'm not in the humanities, so I find it difficult to assess the last section. Does it belong?

I'm using the following overview sources to trying get a grip on these questions:

• https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/earth/
• https://www.livescience.com/earth.html
• Earth -- Evolution of a habitable world (2013) Jonathan Irving Lunine
• Earth Science] Mark Hendrix

Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

As someone who has absolutely no experience in the area, the third paragraph of the last section seems very Eurocentric. Surely cultures other than the Ancient Greeks contributed to advances in Astronomy? Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right there, as somebody else has absolutely no experience in the area. I also noticed that the sources are a bit more outdated than ideal as well. Do you think it belongs in the article? The 2013 book I have does talk about it, but the 2020 book doesn't... As a start we can condense the material that is there, so that it conforms to summary style. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I've asked for some help at the WikiProject history of science. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2020

Because I see the other words already linked, I suggest also linking the word Globe in this line:

| alt_names  = [[Gaia hypothesis|Gaia]], [[Gaia|Gaea]], [[wikt:Terra|Terra]], [[Terra (mythology)|Tellus]], the [[World]], the [[Globe]]

84.147.37.115 (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)\\\\

 Done MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleting some notes from article, preserving for if anyone wants to integrate

The modern English word Earth developed, via Middle English, from an Old English noun most often spelled eorðe. It has cognates in every Germanic language, and their ancestral root has been reconstructed as *erþō. In its earliest attestation, the word eorðe was already being used to translate the many senses of Latin terra and Greek γῆ gē: the ground, its soil, dry land, the human world, the surface of the world (including the sea), and the globe itself. As with Roman Terra/Tellūs and Greek Gaia, Earth may have been a personified goddess in Germanic paganism: late Norse mythology included Jörð ('Earth'), a giantess often given as the mother of Thor.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Notes

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

I believe the word 'eyes' should be 'ice'.

For context, the two sentences in 'Hydrosphere' are In Earth's coldest regions, snow survives over the summer and changes into ice. This accumulated snow and eyes eventually forms into glaciers, bodies of ice that flow under the influence of their own gravity. Maknutson (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I've made that change - thanks for pointing it out. Mikenorton (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Adjectives issue

Earlier I made a edit adding Earthling to the adjective used to describe people from Earth and it was immediately reverted because it was claimed by Mikenorton that it was not a Adjective. My question is how is the use of earthly, terrestrial, terran, tellurian a Adjective while Earthlings are not? Earthy isn’t even used to describe inhabitants who live on earth but rather characteristic of quality’s of people who are from or associated with earth. Earthlings on the other hand is the main description used for people from earth and has been used as such since 1590. If you don’t believe look at the Wikipedia article describing Earthlings BigRed606 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I was pointing out that the other adjectives refer to the Earth itself rather than the Earth's inhabitants. Mikenorton (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So the adjective are other descriptions to describe earth? So then why Mikenorton is the adjective for Mars martians which describe people, (even though life has not been found on Mars), from Mars.BigRed606 (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The adjective for Mars is Martian (without the s) which is still referring to the planetary body. I.e. the Martian landscape. While Martian/Martians can also refer to hypothetical inhabits it is not used in that context on the Mars wiki. Adjectives on planetary body pages are specifically referring to the planetary body itself, and not inhabitants (hypothetical or known). Hope that clears it up. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"the Earth", or just "Earth" ?

For hundreds of years in the English language, the planet Earth, unlike the other planets, has been traditionally and commonly referred to as "the Earth". But today, our planet is now very widely expressed also, simply and logically as "Earth", because the inclusion of "the" with Earth is illogically inconsistent if used for other planets, as in this sentence example- "It is a fact that Earth and the Mars are both planets." Of course, anyone could immediately realize that "the Mars" in that sentence is wrong, because it is illogically inconsistent. But the Traditionalist will continually defend this inconsistency with these two endlessly circular 'reasons'- 1. TRADITION: Using the phrase "the Earth" is still traditionally used, and thus correct! 2. COMMON USE: Using the phrase "the Earth" is still in common use, and thus correct!

Is there anyone here on WIKIPEDIA, after reading the above, that still does NOT understand the illogical inconsistency of the phrase "the Earth"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuuur333999 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If language use was governed only by logic, it would make all our lives easier. Having said that, "the Earth" only turns up three times in the article outside references to other WP articles, a discussion on Etymology, in compound words such as "the Earth-Moon system" and in citations (75% of the usage in the article). I'll change the three for consistency, although I personally use "the Earth" all the time and as the citations show it is in common use and that is a valid argument here, whatever you may think. Mikenorton (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see no difference between the names 950CMR (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The word Earth traces etymologically "die Erde" in German, from which the Old English word for Earth is also (probably)devolved. German uses definite articles on all planets, so Mar is "der Mars" which is literally the (masc.) Mars. Every mention of the name of a planet is preceded by "the" in German. Obviously this isn't the convention in English but it is worth nothing that "Earth" is a proper name so there's a linguistic reason to use both "Earth" and "the Earth" in modern English. The convention seems to be to use "the Earth" when referring to it for the first time in writing and then as "Earth" thereafter. (Adamopoulos) 1:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As a german native speaker I can only point out that in german its though not wrong to use an article even if you want to say e.g. "on Emily", then you would mostly say "on the Emily". So german doesnt help us. I think the argument stems from similar discussions like "the moon" or "the Moon", which is more complicated because moon can be any moon. But it gives more clearity why there is still a "the" with Earth.

Imho I think "the" is used if you cant make it otherwise clear that you mean Earth, and not any earth, as in soil, when for example speaking you cant show that you mean the capital letter Earth; like in the case of the Moon, where its as I said still not established that there are moons and the Moon, so saying "on Moon" feels still very odd, even though knowing that it means on the place called Moon. So my verdict is: since its a name and Wikipedia is textbased, "Earth" without "the" is correct. Earth is established enough to just use it like that, unlike sadly Moon. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Temperature spelled tempearture

Hi,

I'm not sure how Wikipedia's system works, but on the Earth page, under Chronology, under Future, temperature is erroneously spelled tempearture in the sentence "Earth's mean tempearture may reach 100 °C (212 °F) in 1.5 billion years, and all ocean water will evaporate and be lost to space within an estimated 1.6 to 3 billion years.[83]"

76.188.161.99 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I've corrected it. Normally, you'd be able to correct this yourself, but because there used to be a lot of vandalism on this article, only users with an account of at least a few days old can edit. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Chemical composition of the crust table

Hello,

I was just looking at the table in Earth § Chemical composition and was wondering why it has a total of 100.1% for Continental Composition. Also, the Oceanic Composition values appear to sum to 96.5% instead of 99.9%—which is stated. Please, double-check me on this. If I am missing something obvious please let me know but I would appreciate a conversation or explanation about this.

Thanks, ritenerek⋆:) 20:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

100.1% can be a rounding error,

96.5% must be an error. Can you be bold and correct it? FemkeMilene (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

FemkeMilene Sure thing (revision 1011607563). I suppose the 100.1% just looks quite odd to me. ritenerek⋆:) 20:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What's really odd is that I can't find the values used in the table in the cited source. Table 7 from White & Klein does give the composition of bulk oceanic crust, but the values don't match. On looking further, it seems that the citation changed a few years ago but the values didn't - I'll update it. Mikenorton (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Mikenorton, good catch! ritenerek⋆:) 09:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Earth-Semitic Etymological Root

Reading wikipedia's page here explaining the etymological source of the word: Earth made VERY LITTLE to NO sense to me!

No one has offered the PHONETICALLY VERY CLOSELY-RELATED Arabic (& Hebrew) words to this word. In Arabic, the word for Earth sounds CLOSEST to the English word & is pronounced: Arth (with the final 'th' pronounced (rather HEAVILY!), as the 'th' in the demonstrative pronoun: 'this' (with the following spelling: ارض). Hebrew's (closely-related) version of this word is the word for land, pronounced: E're'ts (with the spelling of: ארץ)! MUCH MORE SENSICAL (in sound & probably, ALSO, in terms of historical-evolution of a language through worldwide trade routes & the migration of people from certain regions or areas-respectively,to others, thereby directly impacting the linguistic evolution (by a process of one language sharing certain words with another &/or inspiring another in the creation of new words &/or their change/"improvement").

AK63 (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have WP:reliable sources stating this? FemkeMilene (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

"Discovery of Earth"

If you want a date for the discovery of Earth, the best is arguably 1758, when the return of Halley proved Newtonian mechanics. Serendi^podous 16:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

But we don't! That has rightly been removed. What an over-filled infobox! Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Unlike the classical planets, the planet Earth -- or rather, that Earth was a planet -- was discovered by Aristarchus of Samos in ca. 270 BCE. That's quite a notable historical event -- revolutionary, in fact -- and deserves to be in the info box. — kwami (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

that type of information is unsuitable for inclusion in the infobox. It's already very stuffed. Furthermore, it raises many questions: are we sure other cultures didn't discover this before, but no records remain? Are there other definitions of discovering? I'm not convinced posing earth is a planet is a good definition of discovering. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus "discovering" something you've been standing on all your life is hardly the same as discovering a distant planet. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not the same thing, but that is obvious from context, and thus the dab 'as a planet'. Whether or not the box is overstuffed, this is important historical info.

Of course we can't be sure no-one discovered this before. But that's true for many discoveries. Vesta and Uranus are visible to the naked eye -- can we be sure no-one else ever noticed them before the discovery date we give? The best we can do for any discovery is to give the earliest attested person and date. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

We should not have "discovery of Earth" in the infobox. Don't be silly, don't split hairs, don't make technical arguments about "discovery" that require far more context than an infobox can provide. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Things you disagree with are not necessarily silly. Personally, I find your opinion silly. Aristarchus discovered that Earth was a planet. Since most people seem to think it was Copernicus who did that, IMO that is important info to give. And a difference of 2 millennia is hardly 'splitting hairs'. — kwami (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

He may have discovered "that Earth was a planet". He did not discover Earth; people have lived on Earth since before time immemorial. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's why I had the dab '(as a planet)'. But your argument is a bit like claiming that no-one discovered germs because people have been catching them since time immemorial. We often speak of discovering a new species when people knew of an animal or plant but didn't realize it was its own species.

People did not know of the Earth before Aristarchus. They knew they walked on ground, but that's hardly the same thing. They knew of the world, they had no idea about the Earth. They didn't know about the atmosphere either, though they knew they breathed air. — kwami (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. We seem to have a consenus it doesn't belong in the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Aristarchus did not "discover Earth was a planet". He had no evidence for his belief; he just happened to be right. He wasn't even the first to suggest it; the Pythagoreans had believed it before him. Serendi^podous 17:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

OK to go ahead with spoken version of this article?

I'm considering recording a spoken version of this article in advance of the day it will be featured on the main page. However, I see that back on the 6th of November 2020, such a recording was removed. Was this due to e.g. quality concerns, or might a new recording be removed too? If so, I'd rather know before starting on a recording, instead of afterwards!

One link to the original recording doesn't work, but I found another, and can provide the links if they're hard to find. (I don't really know talk-page link etiquette yet.) I think the original recording was a synthesised voice or a very distorted recording, if that's relevant.

Thrownfootfalls (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That recording was removed because it was very old. I think it would be cool to have a new recording. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Comma?

Why the inconsistency in two sentences?

About 29,2% of Earth's surface is land consisting of continents and islands. The remaining 70.8% is covered with water, 

Use a comma before the fraction once, then a period? Wikipedia:DECIMAL seems to confirm that it is wrong with a comma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk)

I've brought it back to two significant digits, as that much detail isn't needed in the first paragraph. Thanks for noting! FemkeMilene (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abysshark: why do you think a third decimal is better? I think it's overly detailed for the first paragraph of the lede. People can read further for this type of information. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Earth's gravity interacts with Sun?

In the lead this sentence occurs, "Earth's gravity interacts with other objects in space, especially the Sun and the Moon, which is Earth's only natural satellite." This suggests that the Earth's gravity has a non-trivial effect ("especially") on the Sun. Is this really true? I can't find this discussed in the main text below. Of course the gravity of the Sun and the Moon have major effects on the Earth, but that is not what this sentence currently says. Nor does it say that the Earth's mass interacts with the gravity of other objects in space. Should we simply remove "the Sun and" from this sentence? Jmchutchinson (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with removing that, as the current sentence is ambiguous. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, now removed. Jmchutchinson (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It is technically correct (the best kind of correct!), because everything with mass-energy gravitationally affects everything else, and the effect scales with their masses (Newton's law of gravity), but as you say, for Earth it's pretty trivial. For bigger planets, not so much, and in fact we use this to find exoplanets, by detecting them pulling on their stars and causing them to "wobble". --47.155.96.47 (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

q and Q in AU?

Shouldn't we put the points of apsis in AU as well, similar to every single other article?108.46.173.109 (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we can replace the km and mile entirely with AU? The infobox is too large as it is, and putting in yet another unit will only expand it further. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Climate change

Hiya @Osunpokeh. You put in a note that climate change isn't covered enough in the article. I've slightly expanded on the effects of climate change, and I was wondering how much information you think is appropriate, considering we're discussing the entire history of Earth is this article. I'm not sure how human-centric we should be.. What extra information would you like to have included?

(for future reference, starting a talk page discussion is probably more visible). FemkeMilene (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Femkemilene Great work. I'm thinking that we should add a subsection called "humans and climate" under the section "human geography", as most research on climate change deal with the human impact on climate and the climate's impact on humans. osunpokeh (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That said, mind taking a look at Draft:Earth#Humans and climate? I have a general idea of what to put down, but need improvements. osunpokeh (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think putting in that much information about humans and climate puts too much attention on both humans and climate change (WP:UNDUE weight). I happy if we specify how humans cause climate change (fossil fuels / deforestation), but I don't think the source we use for 'human activities' says fossil fuels. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Osunpokeh: there is now duplicate information about climate change in the article. Furthermore, I'm not convinced all of it is due; specifically climate change mitigation by states (why states? the EU and coalitions of cities have been at the forefront of mitigation, and neither are states). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Did a quick deduplication and am now looking for sources on climate action, thanks for your feedback. osunpokeh (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Synodic rotation period?

Isnt in the panle the synodic rotation period of 24hs missing? But the template only offers an extra "rotation period" parameter. It is confusing to not find the solar day period in the panel. Maybe the template needs addition or the two parameters "sidereal day" and "rotation" can be augmented. Has anyone been involved in the template? Nsae Comp (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Grammar error

On the #Life_on_Earth section, third paragraph, second-to-last line, it is written "Humans activities release greenhouse gases...". I believe the correct way would be "Human activities", in singular. Thank you. Csoroo (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I've corrected the mistake. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021

The first people on earth where between 7-3 million years BCE History know all (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done History know all Please provide a reliable source for your proposed change, and detail the exact change you wish to make in a "change X to Y" format. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Earth Surface Area

Geodesy: Introduction to Geodetic Datum and Geodetic Systems by Lu, Qu, Qiao states "The total area of GRS80 Ellipsoid is approximately 510,065,597 km^2." This comes right after giving the formula for the surface area of an ellipsoid. (I got a result 26 km^2 greater on my spreadsheet using full precision figures). But this article has a value about 1800 square km greater. The numbers here lead to a value the same as that from WGS84 and GRS80 to the tenth of a square kilometer. 510065623.4 And the volume figure is correct to every digit. DianaCLnomad (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Rotation period and Equatorial speeds

I have noticed recently that the rotation period has changed to 24 hours exactly in line with the Latitude/Longitude framework and the GPS system while the Equatorial rotation velocity has yet to be adjusted to be consistent with that period value. In this case, the values are 1037.5 mph and 1669.8 km/hr for an Equatorial circumference of 24,901 miles or 40,075 km. Orion216 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC) o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.135.115.231 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please can you tell me the how much water and air does Earth have ? have

Please 103.217.240.139 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2021

Add unbalanced right square bracket on Line 15. Pestarzt000 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Earth

Earth is actually a dwarf planet and not a planet at all 49.204.134.98 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you point us at a reliable source that supports that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hidden note

I decided to take the following hidden note out of the lead and post it here to give it more exposure (the note is not from me): "<-- This article covers surprisingly little about climate change etc. when climate change is literally in the lead. -->" Nsae Comp (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - yes better here Chidgk1 (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Mean anomaly" does not constantly change ? (Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2022)

Something in the info box is called mean anomaly, but mean anomaly, according to the definitions I found on line, is a time-varying quantity, it changes with the progress of the orbiting object`s rotation. The way the data is entered in the article does not appear to make it change with time, and nothing like that would be usual for Wiki.

The source from NASA on the same data on Mars is wrongly referenced, it does not contain an entry called mean anomaly.

I suggest the wording is changed based on what it actually means, not the degree in circle or ellipse it has since travelled since its last shortest orbital distance (periapse). 46.114.146.32 (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It's a good question, but the key thing to note here is that there is an Epoch at the top of that list of parameters. That means that the mean anomaly is being specified at that exact moment of time. In this case, the epoch is J2000.0, meaning that the number is the position of the Earth at 0:00 UTC on January 1, 2000. PianoDan (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph on further human impact environment

I don't fully understand it: Furthermore human activity has caused atmospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, and a range of other issues, such as the collapse of ecosystems and getting close to planetary boundaries other than the tipping points in the climate system.[citation needed]

Why planetary boundaries other than the tipping points in the climate system. Tipping points aren't a planetary boundary (climate change as a whole is), and why exclude it? Femke (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I didnt exclude it. Its just allready talked about in the para before that. Sorry for the bad sentences. I would love to see your work to paint a more complete picture of the relevant issues. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove the [citation needed] tag without addressing the need to cite the information? You're claiming that tipping points is a planetary boundary, which I think is false. The text now also implies we've not passed any planetary boundaries, even though the most authorative source about this (Stockholm environment institute) says we've passed three of the nine, including the climate crisis. If you use sources, you can avoid those mistakes. Femke (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well next time just add the reference if you have it and correct the misleading text. That would be very helpful, thanks. Ill try to prevent this in the first place in return. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not have the reference, needed to work on it. You're an experienced editor, so you should know to add it initially. I hope you like my rewrite: I've expanded the planetary boundaries. I have deleted part of the sentence about acidification and ozone depletion, as it was unsupported by the source. Don't think we should mention tipping points, there only a small subset of climate change impacts (even if they get a lot of media attention wrt more likely serious impacts) Femke (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Keeping the boundaries is okey, because they touch on the taken out issues, though I think it wouldnt have hurt to have left the other issues in as elaboration and particularly invitation for other editors to expand on the summary of issues painting a more complete picture of human impact. But I give up adding text that tries to give an idea of the range of issues relating to Earth. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I've further expanded on the planetary boundaries. I always prefer to give context, rather then having a long enumeration of issues. Femke (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

PS: Nice and needed addition to the planetary boundaries issue. Nsae Comp (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)