Talk:Moon/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

why

what makes you sure that Neil Armstrong once occupied the moon? Pewkiw (Talk or Die!!!) 05:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources ("Visited" would be a more appropriate word than "occupied".) Dbfirs 06:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The definition of synodic period is the same as orbital period

The definition of synodic period is the same as orbital period

116.251.32.210 (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Dee Aitchess

My reading of the article suggests a clear distinction between orbital period (wikt:siderial), and the time between phases (synodic period). Are you suggesting a way to make the article even clearer? Dbfirs 11:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Boomer Moon

They have names for every kind of moon: full, crescent, half, new, waxing, waning, gibbous, harvest, blood, wolf, blue, etc, etc, etc. I find it negligent to simply call this, "seeing the moon during the day." That's right. There's no term for it. I again hereby claim this- Boomer's Moon

Well you are welcome to claim the term, but you cannot put it in Wikipedia until it appears in WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 12:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Moon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Moon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Moon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is 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.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Lunar Water section apparent contradiction

Maybe I am reading this wrong but the first sentence of the section seems to contradict the third paragraph

"Liquid water cannot persist on the lunar surface.

In years since, signatures of water have been found to exist on the lunar surface.[98] ...

The 2008 Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft has since confirmed the existence of surface water ice, using the on-board Moon Mineralogy Mapper. The spectrometer observed absorption lines common to hydroxyl, in reflected sunlight, providing evidence of large quantities of water ice, on the lunar surface."141.156.187.235 (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's any contradiction there. The first sentence you quote says liquid water cannot persist; the other bits are talking about water ice. --Trovatore (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Needs update (and rewrite)

There's nothing here on the published (peer-reviewed) findings the Chinese made in 2019. The Exploration section needs to be rewritten, imho. There's way, way too much about failed projects (like the Google prize, it was a bust and deserves little here (maybe just a "see also" link)). I think the failed missions should be deleted or at least moved to their own section or even better table; how much needs to be said about complete failures? There's also nothing (that I saw) about the private Israeli mission which crashed but which left thousands of tardigraves on the Moon, some of which may still be resuscitated from their dormant, dessicated state (although as far as I am aware, the record is only 10 days in space (hard vacuum), and the crash was in April, almost 5 months ago, iirc.) At the very least it is intentional bio-contamination and in that way precedent setting. I seem to recall something the US Trump administration did which puts the current treaties under stress, but I don't recall the details. Anyway, in my opinion, the Exploration section is a mess. It makes no sense to me to write about exploration in anything other than chronological fashion, and yet it seems that countries have their own paragraphs with newer material spliced onto the end of that paragraph. So, to see what's happened in the last couple of years you have to read thru the entire 21st Century! Lame.40.142.185.108 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You are right, but the way things work here is...help please! Ceoil (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I totaly agree,I recently added something and I didnt know where to put it in the whole section, because most of it is for example under the header "By spacecraft", why is that on top? ... I started now by changing the selective header of "Ancient and medieval studies" to "Before spaceflight", you might put in another section like "Before optical instruments", but I dont know if that level of detail is maybe better on the dedicated article of Exploration of the Moon. ... What I am also confused by (but also in other articles) is the difference of ancient observation and the different section of "In culture", e.g. some calender history is duplicated. Nsae Comp (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Mean Radius

There's a slight discrepancy between the mean radius listed in the infobox and the radius listed at [4]. The number in the infobox seems to take the plain average between the equatorial and polar radii, which isn't quite right. The generally accepted lunar datum put forward by the IAU is called Moon 2000, which is a perfect sphere with a radius of 1737.4km. This corresponds nicely with that NASA fact sheet. I'm not trusted enough to actually make the edit myself, though, so if someone could update it that would be much appreciated :) Ispace-dan (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Capitalization

While I would favor capitalizing 'moon' on logical grounds, it seems to me that according to Wikipedia rules, it should be lower case. looking through the archives, I could not find reason for it to be capitalized. Both Webster's and Oxford are cited as using lower case. Kdammers (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• • See MOS:CELESTIALBODIES. In the archives of the talk page of that page, or of the general MOS (WT:MOS), you should be able to find as much discussion on the matter as you could possibly want. You're free to bring the topic up again at any time, of course, but be aware that, to put it mildly, it's been gone over before. --Trovatore (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Actually, when a Person, place or thing is the "subject" of a discussion, it becomes a proper noun, and is capped, as per our own Proper Noun article will explain literally in the first sentence: "A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity, such as London, Jupiter, Sarah, or Microsoft, as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities (city, planet, person, corporation) and may be used when referring to instances of a specific class (a city, another planet, these persons, our corporation).→ Jessie Eastland (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Also, once you name a planet, place or thing, it also becomes a proper noun. When we refer to a moon orbiting a planet, like one of Titan's moons, it is a noun, and not capped, however, should we name that moon, it then becomes a proper noun, and when referring to it by its name it is capped. Since we have named our orbiting planet: the Moon, it is capped. https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/capital_letters_moon_sun_planets.htm →Jessie Eastland (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• This is an instance where Wikipedia gets it right (Sun, Moon, Earth) while other styles and usage seem to think that the gigantic star and the massive rock trying to fall onto the giant thing that we live on which, itself, is trying to fall into the huge nuclear furnace, are minor things not worthy of a proper name. Maybe other styling guides who still lower-case will take Wikpedia's common sense into consideration at some point and capitalize these (sort of like Bing and Google still getting Marilyn Monroe's death date wrong). I tried to check Britannica but got flooded with ads and my computer froze, they really should just close their doors. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Measurements

I think the Moon (and other celestial objects) should have the imperial measurements as well as metric for their geometries, distances and velocities. Many interesting correlations can be revealed in miles and inches that just aren't obvious in meters. Both measures are valuable. JeffSaucerman (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2019

I would advise you to remove this statement from the top of the article occasionally distinguished as Luna As Luna is not a English word but Spanish or Latin word 24.39.37.130 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Consensus was established some time ago (here for example) that the word "Luna" is Latin, not English, and is used only in science fiction. The term seems to have crept back into the article recently, so I've removed it from the lead per the request and earlier consensus. The word is correctly discussed in the mythology and lunacy sections, and could well be added to a future science fiction section. Dbfirs 21:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It is Roman by origin, but it is the commonly accepted name worldwide. And since this En wiki is an international wiki, the more common name should be also noted. Elk Salmon (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

,,, but, as you say, this is the English Wikipedia, so only names used in English should appear in the lead. By all means mention names used in other languages later in the text. Dbfirs 07:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Error in the Earth - Moon System ( Schematic )

 The distance from the center of the Earth to the Earth - Moon Barycenter is  4671 Km, not 4641 Km.

The Mass of the Earth is about 81.301 times the Mass of the Moon which has a mass of 1.0. The E - M System has a mass of 82.301 so the distance is 384405 km / 82.301 = 4670.7 km. Rounding up gives 4671 km. A mass of 81.301 orbiting at a distance of 1.0 is balanced by a mass of 1.0 orbiting at a distance of 81.301, but, the total distance between the masses is 82.301. The System is co-linear, co-orbiting, balanced, and, mass and distance proportional. Notice that the total mass of the system is 82.301, and the total distance is 82.301. 98.245.216.62 (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Name Change?

Why is the article's name not "Luna (Moon)" or something of the like? It's the Moon's official name and there's already a "Moon" page, where that name is already used better than here. Aardwolf68 (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"Moon" is the English name of this body. Georgia guy (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

But we also use the Roman/Greek versions of the Moons for the other planets, so why is this any different? Aardwolf68 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

See: WP:COMMONNAME O3000 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that we're never going to name the article Luna, but I do question whether the common name is really "Moon" without the article. It's almost always the Moon, not just "Moon". The only time I can think of that bare "Moon" is grammatical is when it's used to modify something else ("Moon rocks", "Moon-based telescope", for example). I don't think we're actually going to move it to the Moon; I would probably come down against such a move — but I'm not quite sure why. Has it been discussed? Can we explain the reasons in a FAQ or something? --Trovatore (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Have a quick look at WP:THE. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything there that's directly on point. The closest thing actually goes in the other direction; it says When a proper name is almost always used with "The", especially if it is included by unaffiliated sources, the article "The" should be used in the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article as well.

Here we have a proper name that is almost always used with "The" in almost all sources, so that would argue for having the article at the Moon. However the above text is from a section called "Names of groups, sports teams and companies", so as I say it's not directly on point. I don't see anything in the guideline that is directly on point. --Trovatore (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

If 'the' was a part of the proper name, then it would be capitalized. Unlike The New York Times, it isn't. O3000 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's opening a can of worms :-). There have been heated discussions at the MoS about whether to capitalize (for example) The Who, and the anti-capitalist faction has unfortunately won, as far as I can tell — according to the manual we're supposed to write the Beatles and the The.

A counter-argument would be that, if the "the" were not part of the name, we could say things like "*humans first visited Moon in 1969".

In any case, I don't actually want to move the article to the Moon. I just want to clarify the reasons. So far I'm not sure myself why I don't want to move it. --Trovatore (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:UCRN mentions Mueller Report. It is nearly always preceded by 'the', but is not in the article name. O3000 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

The moon is really important in human history 94.204.23.186 (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 94.204.23.186 (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but  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. GoingBatty (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

protected edit request on 2 May 2020

60.254.11.169 (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2020

71.167.165.10 (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Technically in moon years which consist of 27 days, the moon would be in its own years it would be 60833333333.3 moon years old.

•  Not done This is the English WP. That would belong in the Moonise Wikipedia. O3000 (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Where the North Polar Star (or South) if on the sky the Moon.

On the straight line (or nearly) that is going nearly (or no) with straight line his diameter.

And once this time. The 5-th postulate of Evklid is not with needs. If the 2-nd line was no stright - where they?

176.59.201.226 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

In paragraph 1 of this article it states the following "The Moon is an astronomical body orbiting Earth as its only natural satellite. It is the fifth-largest satellite in the Solar System, and by far[13] the largest among planetary satellites relative to the size of the planet that it orbits (its primary)." However, the statement regarding the size of the Moon in relation to Earth is incorrect. The largest natural satellite in the solar system of any planetary body is Charon, the largest of Pluto's moons. The argument from many will be that Pluto was demoted to Dwarf planet status, regardless of one's perspective on nthis, the fact is that Charon is a natural satellite of a planetary body, Pluto is not an asteroid, it is a body that orbits the Sun independent of other bodies except those it holds in a gravitational embrass. Could someone, as I do not appear to have access to do this, correct the line so it reads " The Moon is the second largest natural satellite of ny planetary body in the solar system, only suppassed by Charon, Pluto's largest Moon"

Here is a link to a Space.com article on the subject where it discusses the 40th anniversary of the Discovery of Charon by James Christy of the USNO.

Thanks you. JimFranklinPHD (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: *Charon (moon): Mean radius 606.0±0.5 km

• Moon: Mean radius 1737.4 km

QED... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

can we get some miles here?.. as long as entire countries like the U.S. use miles as their dominant measurement system they should also be displayed alongside km for us non-metric users 2600:1009:B166:F67A:D4F:1BE:C49D:6C9C (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The article already has conversions into miles throughout (except in the infobox, where inserting the conversions would probably pose layout issues). Rosbif73 (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Age of the moon

I found today this source about a new modelling about the age of the Moon: [[1]]. It says the mooon is 4.425 Billion years old (± 25 Million years). -- 193.196.128.254 (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The Moon

The First People W — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.182.19 (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"Lunar System" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lunar System. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 9#Lunar System until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"Satellite of Earth" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Satellite of Earth. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 3#Satellite of Earth until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2020

NonPopularPerson (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Not done: It is not clear what you are requesting.—Anita5192 (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

References

"Lunar day" in lead

Hi!

User:Goszei and I have been tweaking the lead. But I want to move the tweaking of one sentence here for now.

The current sentance is:

"A full orbit of the Moon around Earth takes about 27.3 Earth days (a sidereal month); a synodic month (29.5 days) syncs with the lunar phases observed from Earth, and results in the lunar month of a lunar calendar."

Now I want to argue that this sentance should connect to the sentance before it about the Moon's tidal locking, particularly the rotation of the Moon around its own axis, and only then continue about the sidreal month, since the sidreal month is not about the rotation of the Moon.

I find this approach useful, because continuing with the rotation can better pave the way for introducing the synodic period.

Further I would argue mentioning the lunar day helps the reader to take a perspective from the Moon, and with that introducing the rotation in a relateable way.

So I want to propose something like this:

"The tidally locked rotation of the Moon creats a day-night cycle on the Moon which is in sync with its synodic period (29.5 Earth days), producing the lunar phases observed from Earth, and is the basis for the lunar month of a lunar calendar. This is not to be confused with the Moon's orbital period around Earth, its sidereal month (27.3 Earth days)."

PS: I tried to reduce/selectively use the word month to prevent confusion.

What do you think? Thanks for the work! Nsae Comp (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nsae Comp: Hello! I have just implemented the following at the article, using some of what you just brought up:

"A full orbit of the Moon around Earth takes about 27.3 Earth days (the lunar sidereal period), while the tidally locked rotation of the Moon puts it in sync with its synodic period of 29.5 days, producing the lunar phases observed from Earth and serving as the basis for the lunar month of a lunar calendar."

I wanted to avoid mentioning the Moon's day-night cycle, because I think "taking a perspective from the Moon" is harder to intuitively understand for a reader compared to talking in terms of rotations and tidal locking in relation to the Earth. — Goszei (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Regarding the day-night cycle I see what you are saying. Somehow I still see it noteworthy to mention in the lead the day-night length, but maybe I am too fixated on that.

But I have a proposal for the sentance structure:

"A full orbit of the Moon around Earth takes about 27.3 Earth days (the lunar sidereal period). Its synodic period is 29.5 days, producing the lunar phases observed from Earth, serving as the basis for the lunar month of a lunar calendar and is through the tidal locking the same length as the Moon's rotation period."

That way the two orbital categories are mentioned first and then in the case of the synodic period elaborated on by mentioning its rotation again. Nsae Comp (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I just realized that there are different types of rotation! So apprently there is even an article for a Synodic day, or a synodic rotation period.

So I suggest to link that in the case of the synodic orbital period as follows.

"A full orbit of the Moon around Earth takes about 27.3 Earth days (the lunar sidereal period). Its synodic period is 29.5 days, producing the lunar phases observed from Earth, serving as the basis for the lunar month of a lunar calendar and is through the tidal locking the same length as the Moon's synodic rotation period." Nsae Comp (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

"lunar" or "Lunar"

Hi everyone,

since it would be a sweeping change I figured I should put the question out first: The article uses "the Moon" capitalized, rightly because "moon" when not capitalized means any moon. But shouldnt that be the same for "lunar", like "lunar day" etc.? Nsae Comp (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

No change needed, lower case is correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have time, could you say why? Nsae Comp (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't think "lunar" is used for moons other than the Moon, but it's true that if "the Moon" is a proper noun, you would expect "lunar" to be a proper adjective. However, I don't believe I've ever seen it used that way. --Trovatore (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I was now thinking of an example where its used with another moon, but you would seem right, I cant think of an example either. ... But still it does look odd or even inconsistent in the Text. Nsae Comp (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That said I have tried a online search and did find an argument from 2005 for it, but no further discussion of it.

It states:"“Lunar” ought to be capitalized, too, as long as we continue to capitalize “French”." Nsae Comp (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree, but we're not here to reform the language. --Trovatore (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess if there is nothing more to cite, to justify a change in the writing, it stays as it has been.Nsae Comp (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW - I just looked at a New York Times article in which neither "moon" nor "lunar" was capitalized. - Special-T (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not questioning, that the Moon should be capitalized, thats e.g. by NASA well established. Nsae Comp (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead structure

The lead has been edited quite thoroughly in the last weeks. The most recent was to reduce the number of paragraphs and make the first paragraph into a comprehensive introduction to the "most important" things to say about the Moon.

In the course of that content about the origin of the Moon was moved to the para about human activity on the Moon. Even though I like the way this combination was solved, I think the combination is misplaced, not only because discoveries regarding the Moon's origin are not only based on the work of Apollo. To reduce paras I have suggested not to combine the Moon's history with its human presence but instead move the two paras about humans and the Moon together and add the part about the Moon's origin to another para. This way human presence can be seen as a historic product of human persectives of the Moon.

PS: I am for keeping comparative examples about the size of the Moon in the lead, but not in the first para. In my opinion the first para should be about defining the Moon and about attributes which shape its most important relations like its relation and impact on Earth, e.g. the tidal effects. Nsae Comp (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Crescent

-Is the crescent next to the word 'Moon' needed? It makes it look informal, but I didn't want to just remove it.-Flappy Pigeon (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It's the traditional astrological symbol for the Moon. Whether it's "needed" or not I don't have a strong opinion, but it does seem to be in all the planet articles (including the Sun, which is an astrological "planet", and Ceres and Pluto).

I think if I did have an opinion, it would be that the symbols should be kept but better explained where they appear. Maybe they could be moved to an infobox "symbol" item, rather than appearing at the top with no explanation that they're astrological symbols. But it might make sense to coordinate the change at WT:ASTRONOMY rather than trying to do it piecemeal at each article. --Trovatore (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

On further investigation, it could be done in one fell swoop by modifying template:Infobox planet. That would definitely need discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I've seen the astronomical symbols in modern astronomical books so they're not obsolete but a few differ from astrology, the ones after Saturn are totally different and I think backwards C-shaped means astrology and C-shaped means astronomy. Asteroid symbols aren't scientific anymore I think, besides Pluto. Edit: There is an article astronomical symbols. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Lunar distance

Hi everyone, I and @Goszei: have a little back and forth editing going in the lead.

At the moment it says:

"Orbiting Earth at an average lunar distance of 384,400 km (238,900 mi), or about 30 times Earth's diameter,"

Previously:

"The Moon orbits Earth at an average lunar distance of 384,400 km (238,900 mi), or 1.28 light-seconds."

Now the arguments go like this, correctly mentioned in the last edit summary by Goszei:

"about the light-second bit (useful for thinking about communications, yes), but I maintain that it doesn't mean anything immediately to the average reader. 30 times the Earth's diameter is easy to understand, and indeed we have a graphic of this in the section #Earth–Moon system)."

Now I want to argue for the following without having more back and fourth edits:

• using Earth's diameter to illustrate the distance is less useful, particularly because no one experiences Earth's size by diameter, if at all then by circumference. The latter I had previously in, replacing the diameter reference but it got taken out, which was fine with me, but now the diameter reference is back. I understand the diameter reference intends to illustrate the distance like placing several Earths next to each other, but thats a simple calculation people can do, especially because there is, rightly pointed out by Goszei, a graphic illustration in the Earth-Moon section.
• The virtue of the light second example was that it not only elaborates on the unit "lunar distance" but also at the same time gives a useful and experienceable meassure of the distance to the Moon and space alltogether. In comparison to the simple diameter calculation this illustration is much more difficult to be calculated by people, spelling it out is thus a hint for people who have only a planetary sense for spatial scales, maybe this can be better underlined by connecting it more with the unit of lunar distance and its article/-link through a different sentance arrangement

PS: lunar distance deserves its own subsection, at the moment I think it is only mentioned in the lead. Nsae Comp (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

My goal with "about 30 times Earth's diameter" is to (roughly) place the following image in the mind of the reader, which I think it accomplishes.

• 
  Scale model of the Earth–Moon system: Sizes and distances are to scale.

I maintain that any measurement in light-seconds or other light-units is unfit for the lead, as it means nothing for the average person. Off the top of my head, I think most would only be able to recall that the Sun is 8 light-minutes away, which is unhelpful to extrapolate to the distance to the Moon. Circumference of the Earth is slightly better, but far inferior to diameter: in my mind, I would first think (how long does it take to fly around the Earth? it takes ~15 across the Pacific, so maybe three times that around the Earth, so about 50. So it would take 500 hours to fly by plane to the Moon?), which does not paint an adequate mental image of the distance, which is all a statement so close to the start of the article needs to do.

Consider this famous video ([2]). Telling someone to place the tennis ball at "30 times the basketball's diameter" will get you more far accurate results than telling them to simple place it at "10 times the basketball's circumference" or "the time it takes sound to travel in 1 second". — Goszei (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

But even the video uses light-seconds to explain the distance, so I dont get that argument/reference. ... and yes diameter as well as circumference is inferior imho to light-seconds. Nsae Comp (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

PS: I get it that you want to basically put the basketball and the tennis ball in peoples heads, but it doesnt work at such proportions of distance anymore in my opinion, such comparisons focus the attention of the reader more on the size of the bodies and distracts from what the distance is like Nsae Comp (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

PPS: to put it provocatively also the video traped people by letting them focus on the objects instead on what a distance can be Nsae Comp (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

PPPS: so for the purpose of the suprise effect that the video aimed for it worked, but as the video then also did, to be concise about making distance at such scales graspable light-seconds is preferential it would seem Nsae Comp (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Another example is that people might more readily know that to telephone on Earth is at most some milli seconds laging, so reading that the lag would be at best 1.28 seconds, people could grasp that it must be significantly far to the Moon Nsae Comp (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

My 2 cents - don't use light-seconds as a measure of distance in the lede of a general article, especially one about something (the Moon) that literally everyone on Earth knows about (we can expect this article to have an extremely "general" readership). - Special-T (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the "general" reader is a bit underestimated, especially if the lead is all about words such as "natural satellite", etc. . Nsae Comp (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent image add

A recently added image has the caption "waning gibbous moon...". Is it possible to tell from a still image whether it's waning or waxing? - Special-T (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The rabbit head side is the last side to appear and disappear every month. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Humans have stayed for some days on the Moon." - citation needed?

seems a little strange to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.67.46 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved. Thanks User:Wretchskull. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Polar photo scales

Near the start of the article we see four pictures, one is Lunar north pole, one is Lunar south pole.

Please make sure they are the taken from the same distance, and that one is not a closeup, compared to the other. Jidanni (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

Hi I just got some more info on the moon and I would like to change it so it is right. WIKIhowsn (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2021 (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. RudolfRed (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Too many images

This article has way too many images. They are competing for attention with each other and the text. Since the last FA review, this article has grown in readable prose size by a third but images have increased from 15 to a whopping 57. They cause MOS:SANDWICHING in the article body and layout problems (whitespace) in the appendix. Which of these images should be removed? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I look at images & diagrams and am swayed by thinking "wow, someone put a lot of work into this and it's pretty cool". So there's that natural hesitation to just delete it. Based on a few minutes' perusal: Could there be an "Images" section at the bottom to house some of these? Or is that a weaselly solution? Starting at the top, the first one looks good ("full moon"), the next few (the red one, lunar phases & near/far north/south one) should probably go. The "evolution & tour" video should perhaps be an external link. And, if an "Images" section seems appropriate, all of the ones that don't match the subject matter of their section should be moved there. - Special-T (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid an Images section is not a good solution. See WP:GALLERY. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise and these are not firm opinions, but here's my 2 cents: infobox pic: keep || "Name" section: remove all 4 ||"Formation": put link to video in refs, rm "Oceanus" pic || "Surface geology": keep one, maybe the 10x elevation pic || "volcanic": keep "evidence" pic, rm "nearside" pic || "Impact" & "swirls" sections: keep those 2 || "Gravitational": keep || "Atmosphere": 50/50 on that astronaut sketch || "Distance": maybe keep the "average size" one, rm the scale chart || "Orbit", "Relative size", & "Appearance": rm all except the supermoon pic || "Tidal": rm || "Eclipses": keep || "Before spaceflight": rm at least one || "Soviet" & "U.S. missions": keep the rover, earthrise, & Neil Armstrong, rm audio || "1970s": rm mosaic pic, Copernicus, & Ina || "Human presence": keep the reflector pic and maybe one other || "In culture": rm Chandraprabha & one more. - Special-T (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: These often-photographed Solar System objects tend to attract a lot of image posting over time. I tried to go through and perform some judicious trimming. Is that sufficient? Praemonitus (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Praemonitus: it's certainly better with these removals, but I have a feeling this discussion will have to be repeated in the future. Extra care should be taken when adding images to this article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, every few years these articles need a bit of image pruning and cleanup. Praemonitus (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I noticed you added back the scale image of the Earth-Moon system, but it is entirely redundant with the more informative image located just below that. The restored image adds no new information, just bulk. Praemonitus (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the long-time image adds essential information. By simulating a camera angle far enough from Earth to see the actual size and distance relationship between the Earth and the Moon it provides visual clarity and understanding. Far from "just bulk", it shares direct knowledge in a way that humans process perspective visually. The tech-focused chart under it, reminiscent of a slide-rule and one that needs study to process, seems complementary, not competitive. I haven't checked all of the other images and items you have removed, it seems like a lot and hopefully others will see if any of the other long-standing images are important to the page, but this one certainly fits that descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. We already have images of the Earth and the Moon. The only thing this adds is scale. The image below it not only adds the scale, but also orbital variance. In terms of information the fake photo adds nothing; it's not even particularly realistic, being seen from the perspective of the Sun. As for the other images I removed, many of them were unrelated to the surrounding text; they just appeared to be beautification-type shots, and/or are redundant. One of them (the eclipse image) did add something relevant, so I just relocated it. But I welcome a review. Praemonitus (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed two images in the "In culture" section: File:Chandaragiri Vatika.jpg because Jainism is not discussed in the text and the crescent (which is not prominent in this image) is only discussed in other contexts; File:MaslowskiStanislaw.WschodKsiezyca.1884.ws.jpg because modern paintings like it are not discussed at all and there is no strong link with the discussed lunar effect. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

Wrong value is given for the moon's orbital inclination!! Please correct under Orbit from "The Moon's axial tilt with respect to the ecliptic is only 1.5424°,[144] much less than the 23.44° of Earth." to "The Moon's axial tilt with respect to the ecliptic is only 5.1424°,[144] much less than the 23.44° of Earth." Nojedi (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Looking at the sources, you seem to be confusing axial tilt and orbital inclination. The diagram here seems to provide a more helpful image, and it does say that the Moon's rotation axis is "near-vertical to the ecliptic plane". This also gives the correct value. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, the online astronomical almanac is not accessible at present, but 1.5424 (1° 32′ 32.7″) is the value listed there according to Allen's Astrophysical Quantities (1999). Praemonitus (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hydrostatic equilibrium

This article claims the Moon is in hydrostatic equilibrium. However, the article List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System claims that it once was but no longer is. Seems to me that only one of these statements can be correct. Shinigami27 (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes the Moon departs from hydrostatic equilibrium.[3] But then so does the Earth. Praemonitus (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - that statement in the other article is tagged as needing a citation (i.e., does not have a reference to support it) - Special-T (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to address that. Thanks for pointing it out. I tried to modify the statement in this article to match. Will that work? Praemonitus (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request (minor typo)

Under the heading 'Surface conditions' in the 'Physical characteristics' there is the sentence: "The exposed surfaces of spacecraft are considered unlikely to harbor bacterial spoors after just one lunar orbit." 'spoors' should definitely be 'spores', could someone with edit permissions please fix? 2601:281:8280:21F0:A107:C74B:EA4A:D2DA (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 23:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Changes to page protection are requested at WP:RFPP - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 23:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2021

The moon is made up of 0.0008 percent of the same substance found in cheese 168.10.210.37 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2021 (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. Kardoen (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021

I would like to edit because math 2A01:4C8:826:6E55:70C1:8CF1:AB9D:88E4 (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2021 (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. Also, who wrote "The moon rules, number one," on my car. With a key? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. See WP:AUTOCONFIRM, you just have to make an account, put up at least ten edits on other pages (which makes for good practice on how to edit and what works) and several days into your Wikipedian editorship you can come back and edit this page. Easy as (Moon) pie. Enjoy. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarification of Luna as a name for the Moon

Over on Wiktionary someone claimed that "Luna" is "frequently used in English across several domains" for the Moon, which long-time authors of this article know is a common misconception among science fiction fans. They linked to this article when asked for evidence, specifically: "Occasionally, the name Luna is used in scientific writing and especially in science fiction to distinguish the Earth's moon from others, while in poetry 'Luna' has been used to denote personification of the Moon." Based on this person's claim, it looks like this might be giving the impression that "Luna" is used with any sort of significant frequency, rather than being extremely rare outside science fiction. Is it possible that even "occasionally" is too strong a word? Maybe "extremely rarely" or "practically never" would give a more accurate impression of the actual frequency? (The only citation given for "scientific writing" is a single popular science book written by a non-scientist.) Since this is such a common misconception, it might be good to be extra clear here. Thank you. Cosmologicon (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this could be quantified with any accuracy. Praemonitus (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah agreed, combing through the vast corpus of English language usage and determining whether a word is used with any significant frequency seems very difficult! That's why I'm grateful that there are professionally trained lexicographers who do exactly that for a living. Suffice to say Luna is not used as a name for the Moon with sufficient frequency to merit an entry in any dictionary that I can find (e.g. 1 2 3 4). Cosmologicon (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It could be mentioned in the context of Moon-related words such as 'lunar', 'lunation', 'lunary', 'lunacy', and 'lunatic'. Praemonitus (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The Latin name could be mentioned in that context? Yeah, that sounds like a great idea to me! Something like Several English words, such as lunar', 'lunation', lunary', 'lunacy', and 'lunatic', are derived from the Latin name of the Moon, 'Luna'. You could also add 'loony' to that list. That's a really good way to show its predominant influence on the English language without making any claims about usage in scientific contexts.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

please mention the Sanskrit word “ Mrugank” as the etymological basis for English word “Moon”. Currently it mentions German word Mona which is incorrect. 67.70.30.165 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

"Earth's orbit" or orbit around the Earth?

In https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Moon#Formation is "The impact blasted material into Earth's orbit...". Which I read as the specific orbit Earth has around the Sun. But the reference seems to be saying the material was blasted into orbit *around* the Earth, not around the Sun. I suspect that "...into Earth orbit ..." or "... into orbit around the Earth ..." would be more correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.185.178 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I can see how that might be confusing, I've changed it to "into orbit around the Earth". Schazjmd (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

In the Lunar Effect section "purported unproven correlation" should be changed to "pseudoscience."

Wikipedia defines pseudoscience as "statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method."

Here is why the Lunar Effect meets this criteria:

The sources given point to:

• A Scientific American article that debunks the lunar effect concluding that "the lunar lunacy effect appears to be no better supported than is the idea that the moon is made of green cheese."

• A meta-study from 1985 that looks at 37 previous studies and concludes that there is no evidence for the lunar effect.

• Another meta-study from 1988 that concludes 21 previous studies fail to show a correlation between lunar periodicities and birth.

• A magazine article from the Skeptical Inquirer entitled "The Moon was Full and Nothing Happened."

• A Peer Reviewed paper from Current Biology that says, "despite a persistent belief that our mental health and other behaviours are modulated by the phase of the moon, there is no solid evidence that human biology is in any way regulated by the lunar cycle."

Thus, it is pretty fair to say that belief in the Lunar Effect is incompatible with the scientific method.

I think you ought to take it to the main article, Lunar effect, and get it changed there first. The section in this article is just a summary style description of that page. Praemonitus (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"Atnyentye" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Atnyentye. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Atnyentye until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2021

83.142.248.108 (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The moon is not a dwarf planet

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it "Lunar" or "lunar"?

Hi there I have mentioned this before but now I want to propose to mainstream the capitalization of the Moon also for Lunar, because it is inconsistent and grammatically wrong to keep writing Lunar small. I would like to go over the article doing this. What do you think? Nsae Comp (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

For use as a proper adjective, I'd say it needs to be a specific person or place, not 'lunar regolith', for example. You could try asking at WP:GRAMMAR. Praemonitus (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, I placed the question there ( Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language ). Nsae Comp (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

If this is you trying to make a usage mainstream, then that is highly inappropriate. Whether you like it or not, English has many standard usages that do not fit rigid rules. That doesn't make them grammatically wrong. It means that English grammar is complicated.--Khajidha (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

If consistancy is inappropriate then I am guilty. But Ill bow under the rule of inconsistent use if grammar allows. But I was inferring that grammar might dicdate consistancy because of the capitalized use of the Moon. Nsae Comp (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Moon is the proper name. Lunar isn't. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It's true though that we do write Martian and not martian. I don't think I had noticed this before, as regards "lunar". That said, capping it would look very strange to me. --Trovatore (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Martian is derived from a proper noun, whereas lunar is not. Praemonitus (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"Luna" is not a proper noun??? --Trovatore (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

When used in a name, yes, the Goddess Luna, Luna Lovegood, and the singer, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And what is lunar derived from, if not that? --Trovatore (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not generally used as a proper name for the Moon, at least not in English. When you capitalize Martian, its pertaining to the planet Mars. Praemonitus (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

But Jovian is capitalized, and Jove is not generally used as a proper name for (the planet) Jupiter, in English. --Trovatore (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think "Jovian" is like "Cantabrigian" - they refer to a proper-noun place by using an alternative name for that place. Maybe the situation with "lunar" is closer to the situation with "catholic" - if it refers to our capital-M Moon, it can be capitalized, but otherwise not. I don't think there's any real standard out there, though. - Special-T (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That's the only thing 'lunar' refers to, having to do with the Moon (as far as I know). Other moons would not be referred to as lunar, that's Moon specific, and not uppercased. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

While it's clear there is a logical case for capitalizing 'lunar', in this case I think we should stick with the apparent convention of using the lower case (except when referring to a specific thing like a spacecraft). Wikipedia isn't here to set standards, but to follow common usage. Cf. WP:UCRN. Praemonitus (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The Moon Disappeared in 1110

This seems worth a mention. The Moon Disappeared in 1110 and Now We Know Why. Maybe it belongs on 1110 instead. Thoughts? Meonkeys (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps on the Hekla article? The disappearance sounds like a localized event. Praemonitus (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"قمر" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect قمر and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#قمر until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What happens after tidal locking

I reinstated a couple sentences in the section "Tidal effects":

If this tidal locking did happen, the rotation of the Earth would continue to slow down because of the tides caused by the Sun. With the day longer than the month, the Moon would move slowly from west to east in the sky. The tides caused by the Moon would then cause the opposite effect from before, and the Moon would get closer to the Earth. It would eventually come within the Roche limit and be broken up into a ring.

Praemonitus reverted this with the comment, "Please provide a reference; this reads like WP:OR."

It's not original research, it's simple logic. Which part of it do you think is not true? The purpose of the "no original research" rule is to prevent speculations.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Praemonitus. The moon is not tidally locked. What would happen if it were is a matter of scientific speculation and needs a reliable source for readers to verify that the text is the generally accepted scientific consensus on the question. Schazjmd (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's incorrect. But if there is no reliable, published source available for this prediction, then it is still OR. Praemonitus (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Praemonitus, let me ask you a question, and then I'll make my point. Do you agree that what I wrote is correct? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Your talk page is filled with warnings about not adhering to WP policies about reliable sources WP:SOURCE. Praemonitus is just another experienced editor pointing out the same thing. I can't put "Charlie Parker used the flat nine of the dominant chord extensively, making it a hallmark of the bebop style" into a WP article without a reference. I know it's true from studying the music, but that doesn't matter. - Special-T (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll say only that it is one possible scenario based on a simple extrapolation. There are others. What happens, for example, if the obliquity of the Earth becomes unbound? (Cf. Future of Earth#Obliquity.) WP:OR applies as always. Praemonitus (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Lunar Cruiser

Which article should include this topic? Please don't tell me I asked in the wrong place because I have been all over trying to find the right place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

My first thought would be 'Exploration of the Moon#Plans'. Praemonitus (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking Artemis program but that might be too specific.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

My draft is here but so far it doesn't qualify for an article because I haven't found independent sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Well it looks like you have options now. Praemonitus (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It's still not ready for a stand-alone article but it does need to be included somewhere else. I just don't know where.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, definitely not here, at least not yet. Just be bold and put it somewhere appropriate. Cf. WP:BOLD If the curators don't like it, then you can take it to that talk page. Praemonitus (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

In the "Living on the moon" section of the article, please change "so far" to so far FuelUnits (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Done thanks!--TZubiri (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Oversection

Recent edits have left the article with numerous small sections, which is in conflict with the MOS:OVERSECTION guideline. It's particularly bad in the "Position and appearance" section. How is this an improvement? These need to be consolidated to reduce clutter and improve the flow. Praemonitus (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The white satellite moon.

The satellite moon seen by a person from surface of planet Earth is white colour satellite moon. The blue colour sky of planet Earth is blue colour planet Earth then white colour of satellite moon is white sky of satellite moon. Virapaligautam (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that because the sky on Earth is blue and so are the oceans when seen from space that therefore, because the Moon seems pale from earth, then the sky of the moon should also be pale? Clearly this is false at several levels, especially since we know from lunar exploration and basic physics that the sky on the moon appears black.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yup. On Earth the coloration comes from reflection/refraction by the air and water. The Moon has neither, so the reflected sunlight just bounces back into space, leaving the appearance of the sky black. Praemonitus (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

White colour satellite moon is best colour satellite moon. 124.190.192.47 (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Origin of the term moon.

The usual English proper name for Earth's natural satellite is simply Moon, with a capital M. The noun moon is derived from Old English mōna, which (like all its Germanic cognates) stems from Proto-Germanic *mēnōn, which in turn comes from Proto-Indo-European *mēnsis "month" (from earlier *mēnōt, genitive *mēneses) which may be related to the verb "measure" (of time).

The ancient Germanic religion of Europe depicts the moon as a person, a god in some phrasing. The moon and the sun are both gods that chase each other through the heavens. Which is why both gods feature in the days of the week, which are other Germanic gods. How is this not mentioned in the name section or any section of this article? 124.190.192.47 (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

New York to Frankfurt

@Nsae Comp: The description of the radiation environment on the lunar surface in your recent edit as being, "10 times more than during a flight from New York to Frankfurt" seems overly specific to the point of being almost intentionally humorous. (Why not Chicago to Dublin?) I understand that's how it was worded in your source (confusingly being the ScienceAlert reference earlier in the sentence, not the Science Mission Directorate reference following the statement -- did you intend for your Science Mission Directorate reference to follow the statement about induced neutron radiation? -- and it is actually given as "five to 10 time more" in that source), but it would be better if we can find a reference with a comparison to high-latitude airline travel in general, so the specific route of the travel doesn't jump out as it does. -- ToE 22:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems that I mixed some things up and that I forgot to quote the "five to". I hope its fine now. Nsae Comp (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Grammatical error

The last 2 sentences of topic “Natural history”, subtopic “Natural development” should be 1 sentence. I’d make the correction myself, but the article is (understandably) protected. Please merge the sentences. 24.112.172.117 (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I retained the two-sentence structure, but deleted "while". I think one sentence would be a bit long. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Duplicated lines

Hi, whilst reading I noticed that the following appears twice in the article. "Since pre-historic times people have taken note of the Moon's phases, its waxing and waning, and used it to keep record of time. Tally sticks, notched bones dating as far back as 20–30,000 years ago, are believed by some to mark the phases of the Moon". I assume it's not supposed to appear twice in full, though it is in two different sections. JohnmgKing (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the catch. Praemonitus (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Correction to item "apparent orientation". (5.3.1)

Item 5.3.1 states that "In the northern hemisphere it is seen upside down compared to the view in the southern hemisphere. Therefore the Moon's crescent can be seen in the tropics as a smile-shaped crescent Moon."

Actually, the tropics cover an area that spawns both hemispheres. The above phrase is incorrect because it wrongly implies that the tropics region lies entirely below the Equator (only half of it does).

I suggest completely removing the reference to the tropics since it can be confusing. I suggest rewriting the phrase as: "...it is seen upside down compared to the view in the southern hemisphere, where the crescent can be seen as a smile-shaped crescent Moon." PPUGNO (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. I tweaked the text a little. Praemonitus (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been incorrectly corrected. The original paragraph is correct. When the crescent is left-fasing in the northern hemisphere, it is right-facing in the southern hemisphere, and vice versa. In the (both northern and southern) tropics it is a smile-shaped crescent (as the shape is gradually moving from right-facing to left-facing when passing through the tropics). IlkkaP (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Anchor for section Earth–Moon system

Osearth, in this edit, you added anchor Earth–Moon system to the anchor list at § Earth–Moon system. I've temporarily undone this for now. Can you explain what is it you are trying to achieve here? If I understand correctly what I think you want, then the thing to do is add a redirect at page Earth-Moon System that targets this section:

• #REDIRECT [[Moon#Earth–Moon system]].

If there's an issue of hyphen vs. en dash, then add another redirect for the other format, targeting the same location.

By the way, something you didn't mention but I wonder if you ran into: did you notice that when you search for "Earth-Moon system" one of the suggestions is "Earth-moon system", and if you click that, it goes to Orbit of the Moon, and not this article. That is, we have these three that I'm aware of:

• Earth-Moon System (with hyphen) ⟶ Moon#Earth–Moon system
• Earth–Moon system (with en dash) ⟶ Moon#Earth–Moon system
• Earth-moon system (with hyphen) ⟶ Orbit of the Moon
• Earth–moon system (with en dash) ⟶ (nothing)

Two redirects differing only in punctuation and capitalization should normally target the identical article, so that's something else that needs to be fixed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Earth-moon system, and feel free to give your opinion there. Mathglot (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

"Earth–Moon system" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Earth–Moon system and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Earth–Moon system until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

The Moon has a crater, 41 KM in dept from an asteroid named gibbous rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadasdqwe dwvnfdb (talk • contribs) 22:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Attempted Latin is irritating

"The near side of the Moon is marked by dark volcanic maria ("seas")". This is wrong. The Latin for sea is mare, plural mares. Would someone like to correct the text? Professor Bernard (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC). Just noticed that there's lots more of this error. Professor Bernard (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster, Britannica and Wiktionary claim that the English plural of this sense of mare is maria. Certes (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The Latin plural as well. wikt:la:mare#Declinatio. --Trovatore (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

In Latin class, I memorized mare as "mare, maris n. (i-Dekl; Abl. Sg. marī, Nom./Akk. Pl. maria, Gen. Pl. marium)". Giving out the textbook would reveal too much about myself, so PerseusCactus2000Brill p. 105SAT p. 55. Furthermore, the singular of marēs is mās ("the man"). ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC); edited 16:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Artemis 1

In the future section of History of exploration and human presence it says: "Upcoming lunar missions include Artemis 1 and Russia's first lunar mission, Luna-Glob: an uncrewed lander with a set of seismometers, and an orbiter based on its failed Martian Fobos-Grunt mission" But as of 16/11/22, Artemis 1 has happend. Therefore, I think the mention of Artemis 1 should be moved to "Renewed Exploration" and the photo removed/moved 69.9.205.66 (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2022

there is a broken link to wiktionary for "Cynthian" in the adjectives section of the infobox change [[wikt:cynthian|Cynthian]] to [[wikt:Cynthian|Cynthian]] (capitalise the C) Mourecotelles (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done RealAspects (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it Earth–Moon or Earth-Moon?

I noticed that both versions are used interchangeably in this article, either with an en dash or a hyphen. I assume it should be simply a hyphen, as I see no reason for a longer dash, but I thought I'd ask here. Dr. Work (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:DASH for more than you probably want to know about dashes, and MOS:ENBETWEEN for the specific case of an endash used for contraposition. Basically whenever it's "Earth, on the one hand, or the Moon, on the other", or "involving the relationship between the Earth and the Moon", it should be an endash. There's probably a good example of when a hyphen would be appropriate but I can't quickly think of a natural one. Maybe in a future when the Earth and the Moon are a single political entity, and Mars is a different one, you could write about Earth-Moon citizens and their opinions of Mars. --Trovatore (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

What time is it?

Is this something that belongs in this article or in another one?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• It seems premature to mention about a time zone in this article when the authorities are still working out details and have not implemented anything yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Metric vs. imperial measurements

This article -- and every other wikipedia article in English --needs to include traditional "imperial" measurements along with metric. The fact remains that a large majority of the world's native English speakers, those in the U.S., do not use metric. The U.S. shows not the tiniest movement toward changing that. 32.214.22.0 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Lunye" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lunye has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 3 § Lunye until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

to be added to section: Renewed exploration (1990-present) In 2023, India's Chandrayaan-3 mission successfully achieved soft-landing on moon's surface near the lunar south pole. GrandCanonical (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)GrandCanonical (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

Fainlov West has travelled to mars and has even gone onto the moon. He is such a legend. 203.113.203.181 (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Heart ^(talk) 00:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I cited the ESA article for this edit. GrandCanonical (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

English

Give pics about moon and describe 49.145.185.131 (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That summarises the existing article succinctly. Are you suggesting a specific improvement? Certes (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Moon diameter incorrect in the current text (14-09-2023)

While reading the text, right in the first paragraph, I came across with the following complete sentence: "... Its diameter is 1,737 km (1,079 mi), which is roughly one-quarter that of Earth or the width of Australia, making it by far the largest and most massive satellite in the Solar System in relation to its parent planet and the fifth-largest Solar System satellite overall."

Theose numbers right in the beginning -- 1,737 km (1,079 mi) -- represent, infact, its radius, not its diameter. The moon'diameter is twice the width of Australia. Although the Moon is the largest moon with respect to its parent planet, it is the 5th largest in the Solar System, after Ganimedes, Titan, Calisto, and Io.

Thanks, Jorge Sampaio (User jsampaio) Jsampaio (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry, I seem to have originally entered the number without checking. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"Satellite Luna" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Satellite Luna has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21 § Satellite Luna until a consensus is reached. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

"Terran Moon Luna" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Terran Moon Luna has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21 § Terran Moon Luna until a consensus is reached. Certes (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Imprecise wording on Moon's relative surface gravity

The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph says "The Moon's mass is about one-sixth of Earth's...". Replacing "mass" with "surface gravity" or something to that effect may be less misleading. The Moon's surface gravity is indeed about one-sixth of Earth, but it's mass is around one-eightieth of Earth. 128.84.127.177 (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 20:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Age of formation

I note that the 23 Oct 2023 article in Geochemical Perspectives Letters (at https://www.geochemicalperspectivesletters.org/article2334/) asserting a minimum age of 4.46 billion years for the Moon's formation has received wide media coverage. Might we appropriately reflect that in the article. cheers Geopersona (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Maria formation

"These maria formed when large impacts on the far side of the Moon heated up low lying layers of its crust on the near side." Is this really the mainstream view? Mostly I read about maria being formed by basaltic lava flowing through cracks into ancient impact basins, no mention of far side impacts. Assambrew (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Changed maria formation to match the lunar mare article. Assambrew (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Rotation of the moon

Does anyone know when astronomers came to realise that the Moon rotates? Because tidal locking means that its rotation is not obvious, especially if your mental map of the universe has the Earth at its centre. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Use of the Venus of Laussel picture

The mention that "the 13 notches on the horn may symbolize the average number of days from menstruation to an ovulation, or the approximate number of full menstrual cycles and lunar cycles per year" is dubious. It's pure speculation. The 13 notches could very well be an artistic representation of the ridges found on many types of horns, such as ram horns, and may have nothing to do with the moon. I'm thinking that this picture doesn't really belong in this article. Dhrm77 (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree, however if an editing war ensues it may not be worth it. Assambrew (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It is cited, so it is not OR. So the question is more whether it is WP:due. Given the similarity of the length of the cycles and fairly extensive mythology as a result, it seems to me that it is due. And, in a gentle way, affirms that it is nonsense. I would let it stand. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2024

Change the lunar libration animation under position and appearance to the higher quality animation: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007_HD.gif Poopooman-ger (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 16:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

density of the Moon

The mass of the Moon is given in kg, but the density is in g/cm3, although for the Earth it has already been corrected (thanks!) to kg/m3. Other celestial bodies should be reviewed and their data corrected. Mir.Nalezinski (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

as pointed out on Talk:Earth, both seem to be plausibly acceptable, as kg/m³ is slightly more internally consistent, while g/cm³ are the units usually used by astronomers. I wouldn't go out of my way to change them all to be one or the other. Remsense诉 19:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2024

There's an extra curly brace (rendered) at Physical characteristics -> Surface gravity:
"1.622 m/s²  {(0.1654 g; 5.318 ft/s²)"
Xly4 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. With 15 opposers and just 3 supporters (including the nom), there is a 5:1 ratio indicating a consensus against the move. This discussion was supposed to close at 5pm on June 17, 2024, but was closed two hours early as there is a WP:SNOWBALL chance that the change will be successful. (non-admin closure) 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

---

• Moon → The Moon
• Natural satellite → Moon

– Earth's moon is almost always preceded by the definite article, and moon without the definite article more likely refers to a natural satellite. Ergo, this seems like a clear-cut case for moving per the first criterion of WP:THE. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Question: How do you square this with Earth being an example on WP:THE where the definite article should not be used? Leaning support btw but think this needs clarifying. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of WP:OSE, we'd also need to clarify how the Moon differs from the Sun, the Solar System, the Milky Way, etc. Would the best title be The Moon or The moon? (Both currently redirect to Moon.) A compromise would be to move Moon but not Natural satellite, instead moving a suitably modified Moon (disambiguation) to Moon. Natural satellite is unlikely to be the primary topic for the term "Moon", as our article on Earth's moon has nine times more page views and four times more incoming links. Certes (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Certes I think I have a problem with the name of the article Natural satellite, as planets and indeed stars are also natural satellites. So are (the so far I believe purely theoretical) submoons. I know the article points that out, but still. I think the case for the other objects that you mention, is that there are many other moons that are within our consciousness as humans, whereas other solar systems, suns, and Milky Ways are far more abstract constructs. The reason you call it 'The' Moon, is so that you don't confuse it with some other moon, which there are plenty of relatievly close by. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

planets and indeed stars are also natural satellites

That doesn't matter, as they're not usually described in those terms. We don't pick names firstly striving for some level of technical correctness, we pick common names that are clear to a general readership. I'm sorry, but people can only get confused about this if they're trying to confuse themselves on purpose.

The reason you call it 'The' Moon, is so that you don't confuse it with some other moon

No it's not! Not at all! We called it The Moon (in English, in other languages where applicable, etc.) well before we were able to fathom moons orbiting other bodies. Here's some of Ælfric of Eynsham's Old English from 994:

Sē mōna næfþ nān lēoht būtan of þǣre sunnan lēoman, and hē is ealra tungla niðemest[4]

Likely because it's been of a definite, singular importance to our world. I doubt the meaning when we use the definite article has actually strayed from that.

Anyway, Moon is the correct article title. Remsense诉 15:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

On the first point, are you suggesting that the term 'natural satellite' is more common than 'moons' when discussing, for example, the Moons of Jupiter?

On the second, are you advocating naming articles based on a 10th century understanding of science? YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

1. I'm suggesting that to most people, natural satellite and moon are synonyms.
2. I'm advocating naming articles based on a holistic understanding of human language, with the example meant to demonstrate how our use of language is often invariant or orthogonal relative to our scientific understanding, as opposed to it inherently making scientific claims itself. You made a big assumption of what people mean when they use language; I pointed out it was a big assumption to make.

Remsense诉 17:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take the point on 2 (it may not be the original reason for the definite article, but I think today it helps with clarification). On 1, there's some internal incosistency in article name in this case. Should Moons of Jupiter etc. and articles like Minor-planet moon be renamed substituting 'moon(s)' for 'natural satellite(s)'? You cite WP:COMMONNAME but there's no way that 'natural satellite' sees more usage in common parlance than 'moons', and the titling of these other articles seems to reflect that. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense actually, going back to point 1., and as we're looking at literature, I'd like to point you at Intergalatic Ed and the Space Pirates as a slightly more modern counter to Ælfric of Eynsham. Ignore the fact that the pirates are inexplicably French, and navigate to about 3:30 where Earth's moon is confused with Ganymede. YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the breadth of this point isn't clear to me, as the context of this passage is very specific. Ambiguity can always arise in situations sufficiently narrow. Remsense诉 13:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Just giving you the benefit of my own experience. YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose “Moon” overwhelmingly refers to the Moon, not a moon or moons in general. Renaming natural satellite to moon would probably require another renaming of Moon to Moon (satellite of Earth); and even if we broke with guidelines and renamed it to The Moon, it would still be extremely easy to confuse with the article formerly known as “natural satellite”. Tl;dr this is a whole can of worms that doesn’t need to be opened— the current titles are unambiguous, whereas the proposed titles would make it harder to find either topic despite being Wikipedia:COMMOMNAMEs. Dronebogus (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Dronebogus pretty much sums it up. The current titles are intuitive and sensible. - Special-T (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Interesting but ... no Credit where it's due; it's true that, when referring to the Moon as a distinct object, English almost always uses the definite article, whereas for other moons this is not so. Still, I'm not convinced that the proper name includes the "the". Intuitively I would say it does not. Also when used adjunctively ("Moon lander", "Moon rock") it is still referring to the Moon in particular, not moons in general, but no article is used. --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose basically per Certes: we'd need to apply this same logic to Earth, Sun, etc. We don't need to add the "the" here and there's no real disambiguation issue as our moon is clearly the primary topic. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. We do always refer to our moon with the definite article, and 'natural satellite' is not the WP:COMMONNAME for other moons. The very first example given in WP:THE is that using 'the' in a title makes sense in a case like 'the Crown', where 'crown' and 'the Crown' naturally lend themselves to two, separate articles. That's exactly what we have here. (Regarding squaring the circle with the Sun – there are other stars, but there aren't other Suns...) AVNOJ1989 (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well from the perspective of beings on exoplanets those stars are their sun(s). Dronebogus (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Earth and Sun, uppercased Moon is the proper name (not 'The Moon') per MOS:ASTRONOMICALBODIES. As for 'stars', etc., renaming the natural satellite page Moons may work well (please notice that 'Moons' has redirected there since 2004). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Well yes that makes sense per WP:PLURALPT as the Earth's moon can't be in the plural just like the Earth's sun. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per consistency with Sun (not the Sun) and Earth (not the Earth). Moon overwhelming, with long-term significance, refers to the Earth's moon and not moons in general. cookie monster 755 04:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  However, Earth's moon is almost always referred to as the Moon, with the definite article, not Moon. Even other pages, such as Far side of the Moon, Orbit of the Moon and even Template:The Moon, use the definite article in their titles. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the definite article is a convention when referring to it, but is not actually part of its name. It's called "Moon" not "the Moon". Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It is actually part of its name, though. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Not according to the references in the article. We even have a section on its name that states it's simply "Moon". Do you have references that state that the definite article is actually part of its proper name? Canterbury Tail talk 17:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't treat "The" as part of the name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Subtle but important – all the sources state Moon is its name. None say that it is its only name. The conditions listed in WP:THE do not seem to me require "the X" to be the only name for something to implement it as an article title. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the real difference here is the relative prominence of the articles. Someone typing "moon" in the search box, or linking to it, is overwhelmingly likely to be intending this article, not the class of objects that includes Io. On the other hand, someone entering "crown" is most likely looking for the type of hat, not details about Britain's unwritten constitution. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't directly speak to what I was getting at – it's not that there's no difference at all, but for WP:THE, the distinction brought up isn't relevant – but you make a very good point that the proposed redirects would 'invert' WP:PTOPIC. --AVNOJ1989 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Goodnight Moon, not Goodnight the Moon. Marsbar8 (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support: see my arguments above. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: expected and canonical example of where a commonly used definite article is omitted for an encyclopedia article title, à la Universe, Russian Revolution, etc. Remsense诉 15:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Remsense and others, though I could probably get behind the alternative suggestion of moving Natural satellite to Moons per WP:PLURALPT. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, I like that too. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think that’s such a great idea— most non-proper noun article titles are usually in the singular— Human and not Humans, Refrigerator and not Refrigerators, Banana not Bananas, etc. Dronebogus (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  'Most' being the operative word. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  can you provide an example of one that isn’t? Dronebogus (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  You wrote most. If you think it's 'all', write 'all'. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  RGB color spaces. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I know you were specifically asked for a single example, but a peek at Category:Color space may disappoint as concerns how convincing it is. Remsense诉 19:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hepatic veins is another one. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  these examples seem to be talking about categorical types of things— an analogue would be “frum moons” with frum being a specific type of moon. Dronebogus (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. It should be at Moon like with Sun, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, White House etc. Fish567 (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, per comments above. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Trovatore. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Basically, from what I learnt in journalism, titles of articles should omit determiners. Moon is fine and adding "the" is just unnecessary. rektz (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's great, but WP:NOTNP. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  That essay has nothing at all to do with the problem being discussed as far as I can tell. Remsense诉 19:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Earth's moon is the primary topic for Moon, and its common name is not The Moon. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

moon

30 times diameter of earth yet next paragraph its one quarter the size of earth???? also isnt the sun a natural orbit of earth as wel as te moon..yet you say the moon is the only natural orbit.81.170.66.75 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The Moon's orbit is about 30 times Earth's diameter. The Moon's diameter is about 1/4 of Earth's diameter. And no, the Sun does not rotate around Earth so it is not a natural satellite of the Earth. Meters (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

got it, thanks 81.170.66.75 (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Mass of the Moon needs to be fixed

5.972168e24 kg (mass of the Earth from the Wikipedia entry for Earth)

x 0.0123 (ratio of Moon to Earth, agrees with IAU recommendation of 0.0123000371)

= 7.3457664e22 kg (mass of Moon)

or 7.346e22 kg (keeping the same sig. fig. as is currently on the page)

IAU Division I Working Group, Numerical Standards for Fundamental Astronomy, Astronomical Constants, Current Best Estimates (CBEs) https://iau-a3.gitlab.io/NSFA/NSFA_cbe.html Elert (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from both the cited sources and direct calculations like those above, the current stated figure of 7.342 × 10²² is indeed just slightly wrong, and was first (I presume accidentally, as a typo) introduced in this 2015 edit. Remsense 诉 18:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The value of 7.346 is taken from the NASA source. You are right that this is inconsistent with the IAU's recommendation, so maybe we should give both values? Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think giving two figures would be needless clutter, and would imply imprecision in measurement that we're not sure is the case. Barring that, I'm not sure what the best choice would be, and would appreciate more perspectives from those with insight into the matter. Remsense ‥ 论 23:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: You're right, the Gravitational Constant is known to 5 significant figures, so the actual uncertainty is about an order of magnitude smaller than the difference between the two masses would suggest. Renerpho (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

External links

There needs to be a serious discussion concerning the bloated "External links" section with two subsections that has grown to 20 links. There needs to be some mass trimming or possibly links incorporated (if possible) into the article. On some articles, usually much lower classed, I simply delete all but three or sometimes move all but three to the talk page, for any future possible discussion, as section maintenance. The rationale:

There are about 17 links (an astounding number) too many. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth.

The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
  • See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Solar System task force#External links for discussion. Also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject External links#Mass links.

External links This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Note some

I generally give seven or more days (depends on when I can get back) for a discussion before performing trimming maintenance (or mass tree cutting) with the indication of approval being added by silence and consensus.

• • Please note:
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. Thanks in advance -- Otr500 (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Please just say which external link you think should be removed first, and why. Bear in mind that some articles are different from others and, whereas I haven't examined the external links here, it stands to reason that there would be an unusually large number of high quality resources that would benefit readers. You are correct that cite web should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Reply: Greetings (I'll play seconds), I have not examined the links either. I have been performing "External links" maintenance for a fairly long time. I rarely get serious pushback, pretty much close to never giving allowances for anything missed. The reason for the above discussion is to see if involved editors agree there are too many links, and if so, what should be done.

Some notes:

• 1)-There are people that have far (like spaceship far) more knowledge than I do and I am not (that I remember) a contributor, and it would take me a very long time, if even at all, to examine each link looking for inclusion.
• 2)- Any links that are left after some form of discussion and consensus, should follow policies and guidelines.
• 3)- Twenty links is surely considered "excessive", especially with the multitude of reasoning listed above, and normal practices would seem to indicate if 10 were removed there is a good argument that there would still be far too many, however, that is the purpose of a discussion and consensus.
• 4)- Often there are editors that just don't care or "pay attention" to the "External links" section,
• 5)- Links that violate WP:ELCITE might be considered one of those consensus could find that is truly beneficial so should remain.

I am just performing maintenance, and under the "suggestion" of WP:ELBURDEN, that removal of contested links should not be subjected to BRD. A more simple discussion would be more beneficial considering the article is a featured article, is under four projects and considered "Top‑importance". I do not want to jeopardize this. I will seek someone with more experience in this field and see if there could be a minimally invasive solution. Thanks though, -- Otr500 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the hard limit of three external links, but Otr500 is right that this article has too many ELs. The bigger problem is that most of the links are nearly 20 years old, and have lost much of their original appeal. Here's a summary of what I'd do (I went ahead and removed the links I deemed dispendable):

Remove: I have removed the two below from the "Observation tools" subsection, because they are unusable. While an archived version exists, the original URL (needed to use the tool) is dead:

• "NASA's SKYCAL – Sky Events Calendar". NASA. Archived from the original on August 20, 2007. Retrieved August 27, 2007.
• "HMNAO's Moon Watch". 2005. Archived from the original on February 4, 2009. Retrieved May 24, 2009. See when the next new crescent moon is visible for any location.

Remove: With only one item left under "Observation tools", I have moved that item up in the list and removed the now empty subsection.

Remove: I have also removed one of the videos, because it is purely artistic, serving no apparent purpose:

• Video (04:47) – The Moon in 3D (NASA, July 2018) on YouTube

Keep: There is another video -- a presentation, with commentary, of LRO results about the Moon -- that actually seems useful to me. I would keep that one.

• Video (04:56) – The Moon in 4K (NASA, April 2018) on YouTube

Remove: I have removed the two links below, because both the YouTube playlist and the Flickr album no longer exist:

• Albums of images and high-resolution overflight videos by Seán Doran, based on LROC data, on Flickr and YouTube

Keep: I have replaced the following link by one to the actual image (rather than an announcement of it).[5] I find this link useful and would propose to keep it:

• Large image of the Moon's north pole area. Archived August 23, 2016, at the Wayback Machine.

Remove: The original URL for the link below no longer works, and the archived version doesn't have the same functionality. Whether the original would have been useful is debatable (I would lead no), but this certainly isn't, so I've removed it:

• Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) Kaguya (Selene) images

Remove: The situation is similar for this link, which I have removed as well:

• "Clementine Lunar Image Browser". U.S. Navy. October 15, 2003. Archived from the original on April 7, 2007. Retrieved April 12, 2007.

Look for alternative: The link below may have been useful before the URL went dead. We could use an alternative:

• Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature (USGS). List of feature names.

Remove: I have removed the link below, because we had two ELs in the list that led to the same place (whoever added this didn't bother to check what was already there):

• "Google Moon". 2007. Retrieved April 12, 2007.

If anyone objects, and believes any of these definitely have to be in the article for some reason, please feel free to explain why, and then add them back.

I don't have a firm opinion (yet) about the links I haven't mentioned. Some of them appear useful, but I'd have to think about it some more.

To be honest though, I'd much rather have links that don't lead to results from the early 2000s, where a newer alternative is available. We can do better than this. Renerpho (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Renerpho. BTW- I don't have a "hard limit of three external links". If I get no response on an article with extreme excessive links I pick a number like three or four. This section has become a dumping ground in a lot of cases. I have been working in List of minor planets: 2001–3000 and the same 17, 18, and up to 23 links are used on every, or almost every, article. My second bulleted paragraph above states: "...everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth". In fact I was, and am, glad for your help. I do not have a problem with an occasional deviation from the "three, or four with consensus", to five with valid reasoning. On Halley's Comet I was elated that I could agree that five links was a good compromise. I stated there: "I do not have a problem with an occasional deviation from the "three, or four with consensus", to five with valid reasoning." The old WP:IAR is certainly dependent on consensus, so if a majority agrees on seven, then seven it is. I have run across articles with over 40 "External links" in up to five subsection. Thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)