Why doesn't this article give equal weight to young Earth creationism or similar cultural points of view?
A.
This article focuses on the
our policy on fringe theories and pseudoscience, fringe theories
about the Earth need not be given equal weight. Such views normally have their own well-developed articles where there is more weight given to presenting the specific philosophies.
There are multiple reasons. The image is iconic, famous and is one of the few true photographic images of Earth. It has also been a featured image since November 2004. Other images may present more detail of the land masses, but they are generally composite or processed images. For some previous discussions see (1234567).
Q.
Why does the article not have mostly harmless as its short description or otherwise summarize the article's content using it?
A.
This has been discussed several times including (
WP:42
.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
Talk:Earth is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
Complaints about the lack of young Earth creationism or similar points of view are inappropriate content for this talk page. For an overview of Wikipedia's position on creationism or young Earth-related topics, please see the FAQ at Talk:Evolution.
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 76 million views since December 2007.
For me at least, the lead feels like a bunch of statistics and facts being toss into a bowl of salad. There's no overarching theme or a sense of causality that the reader can follow through. A better lead should be much shorter and be more selective. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LEAD suggests that it should be no longer than four paragraphs for longer articles and typically three to four. It also has to summarise the contents of the article, so being shorter and more selective is difficult. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The lead feels so long and a sore to read. To an another example, Britannica's article about the Earth has a lead that's longer than ours but it is much more pleasant to read because the information is not as disjointed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my proposed outline for the new lead, with each bullet point is a paragraph not longer than 125 words as a rule of thumb:
General info, Earth's surface, water and atmosphere
Earth's cycles, inner structure and magnetic field
Earth's orbital, rotational and astronomical properties
Earth's history (with less focus on humans/climate change and more towards other parts of history in general)
Thank you so much for the link. Unfortunately I really need to go to sleep now so see you in ~10 hours. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Ok I want to change a mistake I saw about it saying that earth is the only planter with water on it because clearly it's not. 24.101.87.161 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section says that it is the only astronomical object in the solar system to have "liquid surface water". Mikenorton (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that the density of astronomical objects is largely given in g/cm³ and not kg/m³ by astronomers. However, Earth is of course the one astronomical object which is of interest to many fields beyond astronomy, so whether or not an exception can/should be made for units here can be argued either way. ArkHyena (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The source in the stat did use kg/m^3 though. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨blather 00:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I heard that a sidereal day instead of being 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds it's 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.09053 seconds (small change i know but will help most people getting information from wikipedia) Ertgiuhnoyo (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I suggest adding a wiki hyperlink to the notion "tidal interaction" in the subsection "Earth–Moon system". There is a wiki page about this phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
Sorry this is my first time doing this kind of request. So, if I did something wrong, I'm sorry and please tell how I can do this better if you can. Have a nice day to you all :) Filuo (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Filuo Done Thanks for proposing the change and happy editing! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 14:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-1 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Not done for now: The source for this number is this article. --TheImaCow (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2024 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)]
Done Thanks for pointing that out! ✨ΩmegaMantis✨blather 18:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Already done This is covered in the rotation section. Jamedeus (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)