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 (12345). The consensus is that it fails 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
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
This article is within the scope 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
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
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
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
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.
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]
It is more generally fitting to use the convention researchers of a given article's topic use, so in this case all astronomy-related articles (except Earth now, given its outlier status) have densities given in g/cm³ instead of kg/m³. ArkHyena (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the density units to g/cm3 for consistency with other articles, so comparisons can be made easily. This is the recommendation currently given by Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style#Units, though this MOS is still in the process of solidifying, so input on the talk page there is welcome. As to whether the Earth should be an exception, its overall density is mostly only of interest in astronomy and planetary science and related fields. Chemistry and geology and whatnot I would expect to be more interested in the densities of specific substances on the Earth. But chemists firmly use g/cm3 and from our articles on minerals it looks like geologists do, too, so I'm not sure there's actually much disagreement between fields here. Maybe the NASA source cited in this case is just not following the prevailing professional convention. Heh, and maybe not the first time NASA was confused about units. -- Beland (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I was mistaken about the usage of kg/m³ in other fields concerned with the bulk properties it seems! Regardless, I've added a comment stating that planetary densities should be (and, in literature, are) given in g/cm³ instead of kg/m³. ArkHyena (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the Earth Infobox can i find the diameter from earth? Or is it me.
This I know thank you. The point is: if you search for it by diameter on Google it’s not there. But if you do the search in Dutch it’s there. So younger people search on diameter. This is my point.
The Earth approximates slightly squashed ellipsoid. It'd perhaps be informative to include its radius at N & S poles AND at the Equator at 0°, 90°,180°, and 270° as well as the minimum and maximums and both with and without considering sea level. Anyway, it doesn't have "a" diameter. I'm not even sure that the gravitational center is exactly on the spin-axis, but it's not likely to be exactly midway between the North Pole (surface) and South Pole. Also, "average" is a bit ambiguous. Mean? Median? is the distribution sufficiently close to normal (gaussian) so that the standard deviation would be useful? If so, include em, I say.72.16.97.19 (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info box
The note about ice shelfs, etc. is misplaced. It should be added to Land area and Ocean Area and removed from the total area. As far as total area, should there be a note that mentions that as the planet ages, it accumulates mass from space and also is shrinking due to cooling (and degassing)? That is, the total area does change with time. ? Why not? 72.16.97.19 (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Units of Density
Why does Wikipedia specify densities for all of the other planets in grams per cubic centimeter but specifies Earth's density in kg per cubic meter? Shouldn't these be consistent? Etr52 (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Archean Art
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)[reply]
level-1 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..jpg){kind=small}
Done Thanks for pointing that out! ✨ΩmegaMantis✨blather 18:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}