Talk:Moon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Moon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Moon is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 28, 2007.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Moon (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Moon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Solar System (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Moon is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 
WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / Science & education (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Rotation and Synchronization[edit]

I noticed there is no chart for rotation and synchronization, I took the time to make one however. Lots of people are confused at how the moon works, if you google earth the moon's rotation, you will get a lot of incorrect answers. Here is a super-imposed path of galactical plane and zodiacal ring chart to work upon in the near future. When you have space agency sites like nasa and space.com not knowing which way the moon rotates you have to start wondering where exactly you are in science. Don't take this as a punishment but a room to improve upon. I hope every one using the internet can consider this, because false information tends to lead to a state of stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvdc1980 (talkcontribs) 22:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "no lunar rotation" on your chart. I trust that you haven't found any false information in the Wikipedia article. My version of Google doesn't seem to give incorrect answers but I haven't checked all links. Could you explain where you think space.com get it wrong? Dbfirs 09:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Image alongside lead[edit]

Yesterday, someone put a nice image of the Moon, with major features labelled, into the article down near the bottom. I decided it would be useful near the lead, so I moved it there, in place of a plain image of the Moon (NOT "Luna") that was there. Someone has undone my edit, saying that "to him" the image looks too detailed.

It's in a panel that is full of detailed information, with parameters of the Moon's orbit, size, etc., all stated with great precision. The labelled image fits in just fine. It is immensely more informative than the plain image it replaces, which is really useless to anyone who has ever looked at the Moon.

I've reverted the article back to the way I left it yesterday. If anyone changes it again, I won't fight it. This is only Wikipedia, after all.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Capture[edit]

What about the theory that the moon was captured in the Earth's gravity when it was struck by an asteroid while passing by? The asteroid strike slowed it enough for capture (instead of the extended atmosphere slow-down theory), and left severe scaring on the moon's surface, and an imbalance which forced it into a synchronous orbit. --172.243.214.193 (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That theory doesn't explain the unusual distribution of materials in the earth-moon system. Dbfirs 07:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2014[edit]

The moon is made of cheese [reference - Wallace and Grommit A Grand Day Out.

Bryn cookie monster jenkins (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  • X mark.svg Not done Ha ha, no. If you want a serious answer: a fictional feature film is not a reliable source, whether it is made with real actors or stop-motion puppets.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014[edit]

"It is the most luminous object in the sky after the Sun." (second sentence of the second paragraph.) Please change most luminous to brightest in this sentence since Moon is not a luminous object. This is confusing.

Yes check.svg Done. Indeed so. I've also copyedited it a bit further. --JorisvS (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
There was a long discussion about this some time ago, and the link to luminosity was a compromise. Most stars are "brighter" than the moon (in one sense of brightness). The problem is that the words mean different things to different people. Can anyone suggest a phrasing that is valid for all meanings of the words used? Dbfirs 17:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Surface brightness vs. total brightness. If we could phrase that into it... --JorisvS (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've tweaked the sentence with a link to illuminance instead, avoiding any implication that the Moon is "luminous". Dbfirs 17:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That seems to fix it, I'd say. --JorisvS (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tomruen: Thanks for your link to Astronomical objects, but these can include occasional objects of greater illuminance (the everyday meaning of brightness). I've tried to cover all pedantic objections to make the statement as true as we can make it, by excluding comets, meteorites and supernovae. Dbfirs 09:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Age of the Moon has no citations.[edit]

The article suggests that the moon is 4.5 Billion years old but cites no off site information to back this claim up.

Furthermore, when talking about how the structure of the moon was developed, the article cited [38] suggest the arge of the moon is 4 to 6 Million years old.

Please change the age of the moon from 4.5 billion years old to unknown until someone provide a citation to prove otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.174.146 (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of your statements when the abstract of the article cited [38] starts out by saying "The Moon is thought to have formed through the consolidation of debris from the collision of a Mars-sized body with the Earth more than 4,500 million years ago". (And that's obviously a thousands separator.) Reference [17] further gives the age as 4.40–4.45 billion years. Therefore I see no need to change this, as there are obviously citations backing it up (just not in the lede, which is allowed as everything in the lede is backed up later in the article). Double sharp (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Pleonasms in the Moon article[edit]

I have found two erroneous pleonasms in the article about the Moon:

After Jupiter's satellite Io, it is the second densest satellite among those whose densities are known. Actually, the Moon is the second densest satellite overall in the solar system. If we write that it is the second after Io, so it's the third.I think we should write: After Jupiter's satellite Io, it is the first densest satellite among those whose densities are known.

It is the second-brightest regularly-visible celestial object in Earth's sky, after the Sun. This is the same kind of problem. I think we should write: It is the first-brightest regularly-visible celestial object in Earth's sky, after the Sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.192.206.227 (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Your first example arguably needed something (I have tackled it). It is after all the densest when not including Io. However, the point here is to say that it is the second-densest and to provide the densest as a corollary (which could be left out without much loss of relevant information). However, your second example is how to actually implement that properly: "It is the second-brightest regularly-visible celestial object in Earth's sky" by itself is already correct (except for the hyphen in "regularly-visible"; which I have corrected, too). --JorisvS (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)