Talk:Earth

Why all the "Earth is the only known..." speech?

Isn't one sentence in the intro saying Earth is the only known planet with life and liquid water currently on its surface enough? It seems most facts are followed by how unique the Earth is; we only know of about 200 extrasolar planets, and we have only very rough estimate of the atmosphere of 1 or 2 of those 200. This is an article about earth, not the article on the probability of life in the universe. Lets make those statements a little more concise. 98.202.48.28 (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting; could you clarify? There is only one sentence on that topic. If you're referring to the second paragraph of the intro section, I think the rest of the paragraph is good summary material. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 03:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

He is just saying, and I agree with him, that this part: "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist" has no place in this article. It is an assumption that serves no purpose. It should be removed.

No, the Earth is the only place that we know of that harbors life. The sentence refers to human knowledge. There probably is life elsewhere. Saros136 (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There we go again. But it's not a statement about Earth (subject of this article), but about the rest of the universe. It does not belong here. −Woodstone (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is written for humans and represents a human understanding of the universe. That life is only known to exist here is a unique and very notable aspect of this planet. Therefore it most definitely does belong here.—RJH (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A very notable aspect of this planet that is in most likelihood false. But that's just the point, that Earth is the only place in the entire universe to harbor life is conjecture. It's a guess. How can the article state something like that when we have barely started looking at planets beyond our own solar system? For an article otherwise based on fairly solid scientific facts this sentence seems very out of place.

The article does not say this is the only place in the universe to harbor life. It is the only where life is known to exist. Referring to human knowledge. The Encyclopedia Britannica says about the Earth Its single most outstanding feature is that its near-surface environments are the only places in the universe known to harbour life. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175962/Earth Saros136 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The wording Britannica uses is even more perplexing. If I find a stone in my backyard, a backyard I've never left, is it outstanding because I know of no other stone like it, in all the world? Not at all. If I examine the whole world, and find no other stone like it, then it is outstanding. You can't glorify something based on a lack of knowledge. Obviously Earth is the only known planet to harbor life, relatively speaking it may as well be the only stone we've found. We've barely (and that's a generous word considering the size of the universe) started looking, so saying it's the only such place in the universe, that we know of, is completely redundant.24.79.197.49 (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument. If the stone in the backyard happens to be a sapphire, it's definitely an unusual one. Whereas we phrase it that it is the only "known" planet to harbour life, we are making a correct and relevant statement. Though it's certainly true that there could be life elsewhere, that fact doesn't degrade the fact that it's the only one known to humans to have life. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 05:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there are probably millions of planets supporting life, it is unclear if this "feature" of this one planet makes it notable in and of itself. There are trillions of planets without articles, so what is so special about this one? It seems unlikely that this planet satisfies W:Notability. Therefore I recommend deleting this article and any other articles focusing on particulars of this one planet, including its history, biology, and geography. For some examples, by following Special:Random I found the following articles which are only notable if we assume the importance of nearly all trivia about this one world: Rzeszów County, Acoetes, Koolhoven F.K.30, Four Buddhist Persecutions in China, Taycheedah, Wisconsin, Tenages, WJPG, Bhatgaon, Raipur, Boyd Big Tree Preserve Conservation Area, Alexander Romanovsky, et cetera. Indeed, it took 14 random pages before I found one which has any claim to be of more universal application, Current (mathematics), although even that article takes an Earth-centric perspective since it is presented in a way which is ultimately derived from fundamentally human understandings gleaned from one particular vacuum-state pocket of the universe. Due to the high percentage of Wikipedia contributors who are humans and inhabit this particular planet, it will probably take a concerted effort involving W:WikiProject Countering systemic bias to help us meet our W:NPOV guidelines. I've noticed that many users have in the past attempted to reduce this article to one or two relevant keywords, which would probably be a good start to cleaning up this mess. Any thoughts? ;) -- Kevin Saff (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no valid proof that the Earth or this universe is as old as the article says

I still can't believe things like "the earth is such and such million or billion years old" are still being accepted as fact. I myself believe in the creation described in the Bible, but there is no proof to make either my belief, or these other beliefs SCIENTIFIC. Science has NO part in this, and can NOT prove how old our world is, OR how it was created. Who's to say that the laws of physics were EVEN THE SAME those millions or billions of years ago?! I'm quite frankly appalled that this is in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.171.211 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.—RJH (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for projecting the christian veiw of creation, now, may i point you into the direction that we use the scientific way as that is nuetral.--Jakezing (talk) 01

52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Science has no business conducting science? Right. I think you've come to the wrong Wiki, might I suggest: hereF33bs (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not necessarily scientific, but verifiable - is that right? Spur (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The claim about the age of the earth in this article has sufficient citations. They are entirely valid and scientific. That is all. --Sadistic monkey (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the earth is 4.5bn years old does not, as is commonly thought, contradict the biblical account. The biblical Genesis account talks of a 7 day creation but it must be understood that the word 'day' in the book of Genesis is a translation from the old Hebrew of a word that could mean either a day of 24 hours / one rev of the earth, OR an 'era' or unspecified period of time, possibly of very long duration. Having said that, I think it would be more accurate (speaking as a scientist) to say that the Earth is thought to be 4.5bn years old, rather than saying that it is 4.5bn years old. The reason I say this is because there is a signicant, though admittedly small, body of scientific opinion that believes the earth to be much younger. There are various published scientific papers on this subject. As a comparison example, the scientific evidence for, and consensus of scientists belief in, the existence of the atom, is very much greater than the evidence for and consensus of belief in the age of the earth. Therefore in scientific terms it is reasonable to treat the atom as a certainty, but with the age of the earth, it would be fairer to say that there is a significant level of doubt. Hope this clarifies things a bit.80.41.138.18 (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The talk page of the Age of the Earth article is the appropriate place to discuss this. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because the facts on this page don't adhere to your myths does not mean they are false. If you have no proof that the myths you believe are true then why do you believe them? And there is plenty of evidence that the earth is billions of years old Look up the big bang theory,evolution,fossils,universe.82.23.62.255 (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many people who strongly disagree of the age of the earth, regardless of scientific studies. Furthermore, science has not "PROVEN" anything, they only "BELIEVE" that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. In this article, this issue could be avoided by saying "It is believed by most scientists that the world is 4.5 billion years old" or something along those lines. But Wikipedia has no authority to "set it in stone" because it is contrary to many people's beliefs. 97.102.151.47 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter what people BELIEVE, wikipeadia is an encyclopedia for facts, if you wants beliefs then read the bible. Like i said if you want proof the earth is billions of years old visit those pages i mentioned above. they aren't beliefs those are proof.82.23.62.255 (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And also check out wiki pages for "age of the earth" & "History of the Earth". learn something new. 82.23.62.255 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You also might want to check out http://conservapedia.com/Earth. If you think modern dating techniques are "just a theory" then Wikipedia might not be for you. Qc (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Map and continents

I'd like to see what would be the opinion on modifications to Human Geography section. The current map causes technical problems - one link on top of the other and enlargement of the width of the article. Also, countries are mentioned but not the continents. Another Wikipedia (mechanical translation here, "Geography") utilizes the use of clickable map with links to Commons Atlas, while wikilinks to continents are provided within the paragraph. Would that idea work?--Adi (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That link you provided fails to open in IE, so I'm not clear how it could be used here. But I agree that the clickable map is less than ideal and does disrupt the section format.—RJH (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Works on my IE7, but this link can also be used: [1]--Adi (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would make a certain amount of sense to use a navigation map at the level of the continents. There's a similar image part way down the Continent#Number_of_continents, although it's just a non-clickable map.—RJH (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The new map looks fine, and thank you for putting that together. It may make sense to put it in a template for maintenance and re-use. 'Template:Continents' is already taken, so perhaps a name like 'Template:Continents navmap' or 'Template:Earth continents' would work?—RJH (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Slowing of the earths orbit

Is it true that the gravitational pull of the sun and moon causes the earths orbit of the sun and the earths rotation to slow down ever so slightly. if it is would it be worth adding to the article. Mr Deathbat (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead (top) section already says:

"Earth's only known natural satellite, the Moon, which began orbiting it about 4.53 billion years ago, provides ocean tides, stabilizes the axial tilt and gradually slows the planet's rotation." (Boldface added by me)

I don't know about the Sun, but the Moon is clearly credited for slowing down the Earth. --an odd name 11:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok didnt see it there, thanks for confirming that Mr Deathbat (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Info box image Apollo 17 Blue Marble

The image in the infobox is not the original Blue Marble from Apollo 17 as the caption claims, it's a home-made gif based on a 2001 retake. For reference, File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg is the original, while File:Rotating earth (large).gif (according to its descripton page) is based on on this NASA image (external link). Disregard that, judging from User talk:South Bay, it was apparently a nonsense edit. 78.34.155.161 (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Intersteller point of view

The article currently states "Earth is the only place in the universe where life is known to exist", this does not really have other possible points of view from other planets in mind, as there are probably most definitely other planets with life and I'm sure they know they exist. This should be changed to show that currently to human beings its the only place known to have life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.138.53 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No other life is known to exist off of Earth. That doesn't mean there isn't a probability, or high-probability, of it being so. -Atmoz (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you didn't read the IP's point carefully. The point is that if there are intelligent creatures on other planets, it is very likely that they are known (by themselves) to exist. The point has been made here so many times that it gets really tedious. It's valid, of course, on a technical plane, but in an encyclopedia of human knowledge, we really shouldn't have to say "it is not known to humans whether..." instead of "it is not known whether..." everywhere. On Wikipedia, as in Britannica or any other encyclopedia of human knowledge, "known" means "known by humans". -- Jao (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The general philosophy in is that wikipedia is written from a human perspective. Once aliens are discovered, the wording can be updated appropriately.—RJH (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization issue

Hi. We've been discussing here whether it should be "Earth" (as in this article) or "earth" (as the MOS implies here). Apologies if this has already been discussed but I would appreciate some of your thoughts. --John (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think it could reasonably be argued that, in an article such as Earth, it is MOS-compliant because MOS says as follows:

* Sun, earth, and moon are not capitalized when used generally: The sun was peeking over the mountain top. They are proper nouns and capitalized when personified: Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god. and in an astronomical context when referring to specific celestial bodies (our Solar System, Sun, Earth, and Moon): The Moon orbits the Earth, but Io is a moon of Jupiter.

I should point out that World Book encyclopedia spells it lowercase throughout its Earth article whereas Encyclopedia Britannica does it uppercase so practices are mixed when one is on an encyclopedic article on the subject of Earth.

The Associated Press observes the lowercase practice world-wide whenever mentioning of the earth, moon, or sun when writing something like this: For civilian night-vision goggles to work effectively, the moon must be above the horizon. Their practice is compliant with the general grammar rule encapsulated at Grammar.ccc.comment.edu, which states as follows:

• [Do capitalize] Names of celestial bodies: Mars, Saturn, the Milky Way. Do not, howver, capitalize earth, moon, sun, except when those names appear in a context in which other (capitalized) celestial bodies are mentioned. "I like it here on earth," but "It is further from Earth to Mars than it is from Mercury to the Sun.

I quote this text from World Book: The earth has three motions. It (1) spins like a top, (2) travels around the sun, and (3) moves through the Milky Way galaxy with the rest of the solar system. It also has this: The earth has only one moon. Mercury, Venus, and Pluto have none.

Greg L (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic for this dicussion, but Pluto certainly has a moon. --John (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• My set of World Book predates that discovery. <slight embarrassment> I’ll keep just how old it is to myself for the moment. </slight embarrassment> Greg L (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the Earth article is a scientific article, and specifically in an astronomical context, it seems well justified to always capitalize Earth, Sun, and Moon in this article. My personal opinion on the matter is if Earth is being talked about in any scientific manner, it should be capitalized. I can see not capitalizing the sun and the moon in casual sentences, such as "The sun is hot today," or "There is a full moon tonight."

Actually, those sentences led me to the full moon and Full Moon articles. Seems a bit odd those are two separate articles, and "moon" is alternated from lowercase to capital on the full moon article. Anyway, that's just an example I stumbled across just now that proves the ambiguity of this question. By the way, I wouldn't use a really old reference book for comparisons. I don't know for sure but I'd bet it's become more common to capitalize these terms in scientific contexts, and always writing them in lowercase is outdated. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the Full Moon is a dab article, but I could see it being renamed to "Full moon (disambiguation)" with the Full Moon being a redirect to Full moon. On the topic of capitalization, I also prefer Earth being capitalized in this scientific context because of the potential for ambiguity with "earth" (dirt). "Moon" and "moon" have a comparable issue, with the lower case often being used for moons other than the Moon.—RJH (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the thing is, when referring to the Sun and the Moon you almost always use the qualifier "the", therefore it's not ambiguous whether you mean other moons or suns, regardless of the capitalization. Earth many times has "the" preceding it but it's becoming increasingly more common to simply say Earth, which is what I usually do, and is one reason I like to almost always capitalize Earth, unless it's meaning is soil. It's hard to break hundreds or even thousands of years of common language grammar rules when the space-faring age is only 51 (Sputnik). LonelyMarble (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

world population

does anyone think that the world human population should be included in the infobox? surely that is at least as important to most people reading this article as some of the other figures already there? Jessi1989 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That information would be more appropriate in the World article (as your wording already suggests), and it is included in the infobox in that article. This article is trying to look at Earth from an objective, scientific perspective, and therefore why would we include the human population in the infobox? Yes, it's written by humans, but we can detach sometimes. That's my opinion anyway. LonelyMarble (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be useful to have a cited world population template that can be used in various articles? That way the value can be regularly updated in a single place. (But it may need several logical variations, so it can be flagged to state "as of such and such a date", &c.)—RJH (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin name for Earth.

All the planets in the solar system use Latin names, except Earth. I realize this is because the IAU has no official scientific name for our dear planet, but as far as I know, IAU doesn't have a scientific name for our moon either. Checking the Moon article it reads "The Moon (Latin: Luna)" at the beginning of the article. A similar thing for the Sun, "The Sun (Latin: Sol)".

I am a bit puzzled why there is nothing similar to this for the Earth. In school I remember being taught the latin name for the Earth was Tellus, and I know some people use Terra (from Terra Mater). Shouldn't we at least mention this in the article, instead of simply stating "It is also referred to as the World and Terra."

How about: "Earth (Latin: Tellus/Terra) ..."

Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skela (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Terra is already mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. No offense, but personally I dislike that parenthetical pronunciation stuff that gets stuck in the first sentence of many articles; to me it seems very disruptive to the flow of text. I'd rather see that get moved to the infobox wherever possible, or blended into the flow of the text.—RJH (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, then perhaps we should put it in the infobox on the side? It would fit quite nicely in the Designations part there. What do you think? Skela (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we put a Names entry in the infobox under Designations, above Adjectives. Since the infobox seems to be in a format used in the other planets articles we need to discuss this change before it is implemented. Does anyone have any issues with adding a Names entry in the infobox? Skela (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it is necessary. "Tellus" and "Terra" are not used anywhere near as often as "Sol" and "Luna", and the infobox option tends to attract a host of whatever-people-feel-is-"popular" terms... Better to leave it as it is, as the "Tellus" issue was discussed and removed some time back. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As it is now, the "Designations" section seems rather empty, there's only some rubbish about Adjectives used. Do you have any arguments against it besides personal taste?Skela (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Since {{Infobox Planet}} is used on other articles besides this one, I recommend taking this idea to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects for consensus. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology?

This may sound obvious, but I think there should be a section dedicated to the etymology of the word "Earth". I have absolutely no idea how it came into place. If I find info, I'll definitely add it. obentomusubi 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See: Earth#Cultural_viewpoint. Personally I think etymology belongs in the wiktionary. It gets too much emphasis in wikipedia, at the expense of the actual topic.—RJH (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I must've missed that part. The first paragraph takes care of my concern. Thanks! (Although it isn't quite an etymology, it is effective in giving a brief explanation of the development of the word). obentomusubi 06:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of room on the Earth in culture page if you would like to develop that topic further. This article is already so long that summary style is a necessity. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Time persons of the year?

That navbox does not belong in this article. Opinions? --Sir48 (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed. StephenHudson (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why, really? The template links here. Personal computer still has it, too. —JAO • T • C 14:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't look closely enough. It sounded like it shouldn't have been there, but apparently Earth was the “Person of the year″ once. StephenHudson (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks like an error in the template. The Time Person of the Year article lists environmentalism as having obtained the award and not the Earth. Secondly, looking at the collection of navboxes (Earth-related topics - Earth's location in space - Elements of nature - Times persons of the year) shows a totally different perspective in the latter one, not having anything to do with the subject of the article. --Sir48 (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Time template seems out of place, but there didn't seem to be enough consensus to have it removed. (My earlier removal of that box was reverted.) Perhaps it belongs on the Earth in culture page instead?—RJH (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the point that it's the Endangered Earth, rather than just Earth, that received this "award", definitely makes the template's inclusion here more problematic. Good points have been made here. I'll notify about the discussion over at Talk:Time Person of the Year. —JAO • T • C 18:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Without any reactions I've been bold and changed the navbox to link to environmentalism and consequently have removed that navbox from this article. --Sir48 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

surface area?

The number for the surface area used doesn't seem mathematically correct, using the formula for the surface area of a sphere will give a number in the region of 10^14 meters squared where the number here is 10^11. I actually think that the number from the cia world book might be a typo and the period is supposed to be a comma, also looking for an online reference will usually lead back to hear making the reference circular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.171.165 (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The surface area of 5×10⁸ km² is listed correctly. What are you looking at? Dragons flight (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

oops my bad, did a very silly mistake when changing from meters squared to kilometers squared, thought something was odd about the whole matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.85.47 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Earth as a living planet

earth is the only living planet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.182.137 (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean only planet with life. As far as you know. But a planet itself can not be alive. Makewater (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as we know. ;-) —RJH (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, one day, the magma within earth will stop rotating, the core will cool, and so Earth's magnetic field will cease to be. When that happens, nothing protects it from the brunt of the Sun's cosmic rays, so it effectively dies. --Whyareall (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My friend likes to describe the biosphere as the planet earth. I don't see a problem with calling earth alive 99.238.196.147 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Piepants

"Earth" vs "The Earth"

The article starts sentences by saying "Earth is" as opposed to "the Earth is". Is that correct? Makewater (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct. Dropping "the" in front of Earth is becoming increasingly more common, especially in science-related language such as this article. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Add

Could you please add Template:Physical Earth. I am a newbie user and I can't edit this article. Thanks.

--BSATwinTowers (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Mikenorton (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

hmm, it would be nice to know the average distance from the earth and the sun

In my physics book it says it's about 1.496*10^11m, I wonder if it would be a good idea to include this. btw, I'm using the seventh edition of physics for scientists and engineers with modern physics by serway/jewett (for sourcing purposes if anyone needs it). --Dguenther - DGun (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It mentions an average distance of about 150 million kilometers . The semi-major axis distance is usually what is meant by the average distance in an orbit, and that is in the infobox. Just barely over 1 au. Saros136 (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Average temperature of Earth

I was trying to compare the temperatures of the different inner planets looking at their wikipedia articles. Strangely earth of all articles doesn't seem to have this data I found on a NASA website that it's .04 degrees Celsius. I think this should be added to the climate section It seems like an important and basic fact of a planet. The article is locked however so I could not add it myself. A side note I really don't like the fact that the article on the earth itself is locked, please reconsider this.

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#GlobalTemperature

-Doug 68.25.20.16 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm stupid, it's already in the info box. Just overlooked it somehow. Sorry. Though maybe it should be in the climate section also for stupid people like me, :) Also anyone know what's with discrepancy between the figure I found and the one listed?

-Doug 68.25.20.16 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The graph you looked at shows temperature anomalies (the difference from the long-term average temperature). The label on the y-axes shows it is plotting temperature anomaly, though the text around the graph does not make it clear. The graph is also not clear in that it doesn't say what period is the baseline for the long-term average, but it is probably the average global temperature from 1960 to 1990. If the average during that period was 14C, then the current plotted value of 0.4C means the current global average temperature is 14+0.4, or 14.4C. StephenHudson (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of satellites

The infobox says "Satellites 1 (the Moon)" However, there are many, many, man-made satellites also orbiting the earth. I propose changing this to say "Natural Satellites 1 (the Moon)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.22.75 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is because the infobox for Earth is standard with all the other planet infoboxes where satellites wouldn't be ambiguous. But really, there's not much benefit adding natural satellites for this infobox, it's fairly obvious what it means. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Chemical composition

I tried to hunt down the primary source for the data in the second paragraph of the "Chemical composition" section, as well as "F. W. Clarke's Table of Crust Oxides". I think I have it narrowed down to perhaps the first edition, Chapter I of:

Clarke, Frank Wigglesworth (1911). Bulletin 491: The Data of Geochemistry (2nd ed.). United States Geological Society. Retrieved 2009-03-06.

The data in this article's table does not quite match the values on page 32 of the above, so my initial inclination was to use the values from the book (which was published the same year as the encyclopedia listed as the reference). However, I understand there were subsequent editions of this book, so those values may differ as well. What do you think? Perhaps there is a final edition sitting in a university library somewhere? :) —RJH (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually do not understand why this paragraph refers specifically to Clark. There is a large number of modern sources about the crustal composition. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd think that there should be some more updated composition, since it is almost 100 years later with all those great scientific advances. I checked a book I had laying around (Geodynamics) and it doesn't have it, but I'll keep looking and update when I find something, unless someone beats me to it. Awickert (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. An update would be much appreciated.—RJH (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Found some model estimates; still looking. Awickert (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested modifications/additions

I've been reading through the article, and there are some things I would like to change. As it is a featured article, I'd like feedback before I touch it.

1. Y (Removed. Awickert (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)) 3rd paragraph of lede: I'm going to have to check this, but there seems to be too much certainty implied in the water from comets hypothesis. As far as I know, this is one hypothesis, and there is no conclusion.
2. Y (Awickert (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)) [tick removed: early tectonics Awickert (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)] (Awickert (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)) Chronology:
   1. Y Yes; did it. (Awickert (talk)) Should we also include the 4.567 Ga age of the earliest solar system material?
   2. Y (Awickert (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)) All geological and geophysical evidence I know of points to the moon being knocked off of the Earth in a collision; I think "possibly" is too weak, as in the Earth and Planetary science community, contrary views to this hypothesis have become fringe.
   3. Y (Awickert (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)) [tick removed Awickert (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)] Re-wrote with references. (Awickert (talk)) The total size of the continents has likely not doubled over the past 2 billion years, and the continental area has not steadily increased. The amount of preserved continental material decreases with age because it can be destroyed. The general more modern geochronolgoical viewpoint (which works well with the idea of the continents as a steady-state conductive lid on the planet's heat loss system) is that the continents came to their present-day area relatively rapidly, and that area stayed the same ever since. This is still under debate, but the article seems to support the view based on the thought that crust isn't destroyed.
3. Y (Awickert (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)) Shape: The geoid is not the shape, and in fact, doesn't correlate with topography, but instead with mantle structure. The geoid would be the shape of a completely fluid planet. I would change this to keep the reference spheroid, and to indicate that local topography can deviate from the spheroid.
4. Y Internal structure
   1. Y Added this, improved phrasing in internal structure and tectonics. (Awickert (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)) Perhaps should make clear the crust (chemical boundary) and lithosphere (mechanical boundary)? This could help the structure/plate tectonics sections tie together and not be repeating similar things.
   2. Y Added w/ big table and shiny new section. (Awickert (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)) 20-50% of the internal heat is from accretion, in addition to that from radioactive decay
   3. Y Tectonics & conduction. (Awickert (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)) If we mention mantle plumes, should also mention tectonics, as heat-loss mechanism.
5. Y Moved & improved. (Awickert (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)) Surface: 3rd paragraph should be in "tectonics", I think.

I think that's as much as I'll hit at one shot. So anyone want to comment / give me the go-ahead on one or more of the aforementioned issues?

Awickert (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - it's been like a day, and since this is a FA, I'm guessing it's watched well enough that there aren't any major objections; I'll be going ahead, and checking off the items on the list above as I complete them with a Y. Of course, if there are feedback or objections, I'd like to hear it. Awickert (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I do have an issue with this statement: "the current leaning of the geologic community is toward rapid initial growth of continental area". This conflicts with Wikipedia:MoS#Unnecessary_vagueness. The original statement had meaningful data; the current sentence could be interpreted widely. Please could you address this? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

De Smet, Van den Berg and Vlaar (2000) state that, "Within ca. 0.6 Ga after the start of the experiment, secular cooling of the mantle brings the average geotherm below the peridotite solidus thereby switching off further continental growth". Is this what you had in mind when you said rapid initial growth? Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was going for. Let me re-word that, and tell me what you think. Awickert (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - updated - but I'm afraid it's still sort of wishy-washy. The problem is that there are still geologists on both sides of the fence, so I don't feel OK only putting down the more widely-accepted theory, especially as the #1 problem is lack of evidence. What would you suggest? Awickert (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks good now. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the style clean-up. I really appreciate it! Awickert (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Y All Done! I'll wait a few days for more comments and then archive this as it's mostly just a finished checklist. Awickert (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)