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.
 


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)
Thank you for your answer. Yes, indeed "It is the second-brightest regularly-visible celestial object in Earth's sky" by itself is already correct but the sentence continues with "AFTER the Sun" which changes the meaning of the rank. So I repeat that the second after the Sun is thus the third overal if you count (the second after the first=2+1=3=the third). Then my question is: which object is, between the Sun and the Moon, the second-brightest celestial object in Earth's sky? It's the same thing for the sentence "It is the second-densest satellite among those whose densities are known, after Jupiter's satellite Io." Wether you write "It is the FIRST-densest satellite among those whose densities are known, AFTER Jupiter's satellite Io", wether you write "It is the SECOND-densest satellite among those whose densities are known" and, in another sentence you add "The densest is Jupiter's satellite Io"? But if you write "the second" + "after the first (Sun or Io)", the meaning of the sentence is distorted. Do you understand what is a pleonasm? Kewin. 21:04, 2nd November 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.155.152.130 (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
As I've said, it is the second one, which is told by saying "It is the second-brightest regularly-visible celestial object in Earth's sky". Now, one can go and wonder about the first one, which is the Sun. This is mentioned by adding a non-restrictive phrase ", after the Sun.", which does not change the overall rank, but only mentions the first in the rank. --JorisvS (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
To avoid any possible misunderstanding, I suggest we avoid "second after" and make the last part of each sentence parenthetical. I'll do that to see if it meets with approval. Dbfirs 20:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Parentheses are already quite sufficient to remove any possible misunderstanding. Because these are corollaries anyway, a parenthetical remark seems appropriate. I've implemented the simplest change. --JorisvS (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you are so insistent on keeping the word "after". I think my phrasing was clearer, but it's not worth arguing over. Dbfirs 21:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
An ordinal 'first' is said to be 'before' an ordinal second. It's the shortest I can think of, and shorter is generally preferred. Can you be more specific as to why you think your version is clearer (in case I've missed something)? --JorisvS (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to avoid confusion like that of anon editor 92.155.152.130. Possibly no-one else found it confusing. Positions such as "second before" and "second after" can be ambiguous, possibly meaning two positions away, perhaps depending on the background and native language of the reader. As I said, I've no axe to grind on this: I was just trying to help improve the article. Dbfirs 00:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm only trying to see if I've missed something, to improve the article. True that "second after" could be construed like that, but it is not phrased as such. The 'after ...' is between parentheses. --JorisvS (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the parentheses probably serve to avoid the confusion for most people, so I'll let you have it your way. We're only arguing about the style of English, not about facts. Dbfirs 09:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014 In section 3.2.1. Titled 'Volcanic features[edit]

In section 3.2.1. Titled 'Volcanic features' after reference 61 please add following text (this text is important for the readers and the material is taken from the peer reviewed articles published in different reputed journals):- Just prior to this, evidences for younger (2-10 million yr) basaltic volcanism have been put forward inside Lowell crater[62][63] , Orientale basin, located in the transition zone of near-far side of the Moon. An initially hotter mantle condition and/or local enrichment of heat producing elements in the mantle could be possibly responsible for prolonged activities also on the far side in the Orientale basin[64][65].

Reference cited in the text: [62] N. Srivastava, D.Kumar, R.P. Gupta, 2013. Young viscous flows in the Lowell crater of Orientale basin, Moon: Impact melts or volcanic eruptions? Planetary and Space Science, 87, 37-45. [63] R.P. Gupta, N. Srivastava, R.K. Tiwari, 2014. Evidences of relatively new volcanic flows on the Moon, Curr. Sci., 107, 3, 454-460 [64] J. Whitten et al., 2011. Lunar mare deposits associated with the Orientale impact basin: New insights into mineralogy, history, mode of emplacement, and relation to Orientale Basin evolution from Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) data from Chandrayaan-1. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116, E00G09, doi: 10.1029/2010JE003736. [65] Cho, Y., et al., 2012. Young mare volcanism in the Orientale region contemporary with the Procellarum KREEP Terrane (PKT) volcanism peak period 2 b. y. ago. Geophysical Research. Letters, 39, L11203.

Reetkamaltiwari (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Reetkamaltiwari Thanks you Ricky81682 it will certainly highlight all the new findings. — Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Put the "the" back in "the Moon"[edit]

We clearly call the Moon "the Moon," not Moon. So I really hate to say this, and I know it's unlikely we'll reach a consensus, but the name of the article should be changed to "The Moon." Sometimes a proper name includes the "the" such as "The New York Times" and so it must always include the definite pronoun, even when the name stands alone as in an encyclopaedia article. "Moon" should redirect to the article Natural satellite, or vice-versa, as moon and natural satellite are synonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaywilson (talkcontribs)

@Jaywilson, I understand what you are saying, but let me suggest that changing the title of the article in this way is not as high a priority as keeping the article itself in a good state (including getting consistent usage). As for the "the" in front of various astronomical objects (the Earth, the Moon, the Sun … oh, we capitalized "Jupiter", but we don't say "the Jupiter) is not easily standardized, if only because English speakers don't have a universally agreed-upon "standard". That is the way language is. The thing I push for is just consistent usage within a given article. This one on the Moon looks like it has consistency, but this might be checked by other editors. The article on the Earth is not presently consistent, as others have noted. Anyway, I'm not going to belabor this anymore than I already have. Looking after things, Grandma (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, note that we might say "the newly formed Moon" but not "newly formed the Moon". Indeed, this demonstrates that "the" is not actually part of the proper name of the "Moon" but is, instead, part of sentence structure. Or, so I would suggest. Again, all the best, Grandma (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a Wikipedia style convention. We don't use definite articles unless they're in titles of artistic works, like The Tempest or The Dark Side Of The Moon. Serendipodous 00:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Please direct me to this style convention. The exceptions are more than just titles of artistic works. For example, The New York Times article. But more fundamentally, sometimes you have to include the article to distinguish the meaning. What if we wanted to call the article titled Natural Satellite something else such as... Moon? or what if we wanted to call the article Star something else, like Sun? Then it becomes obvious that the article about the Sun and the Moon should be called The Sun and The Moon respectively, so the article names Sun and Moon are freed up to refer to the generic sense. Jaywilson (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia Manual Of Style: Do not use A, An, or The as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless it is an inseparable part of a name (The Hague) or it is part of the title of a work (A Clockwork Orange, The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien). Serendipodous 22:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
But there's already an easy solution to those issues. Pluralizing easily distinguishes the generic usage. Suns is a disambiguation page that points to both the Sun and stars in general, among other things. Moons redirects to Natural satellite. Also, here's the relevant section in the Manual of Style, and further specified in the naming conventions. Whether the 'the' is an inseparable part of the name is debatable, and I feel that the preference for using it most of the time is more of a quirk of English than part of the name. --Patteroast (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Patteroast, please have a look at the corresponding "the" discussion at Talk:Earth and note that some changes are already being made to Earth without, I think, consensus. Also, if this seems like much ado about nothing, I apologize for possibly adding too much stir to the issue. Still here, Grandma (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Uncertainties in mass, radius, and density[edit]

What are the uncertainties in the mass, radius, and density values of the Moon. --JorisvS (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The volume and surface area of the moon.[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam There appears to be some errors with your aticle about the moon.

Moon equatorial radius = 1.73814×10^6 (metres)


Assuming the moon to be a perfect sphere the volume is given by

Volume = (4×pi×R^3)÷3 = 2.199596×10^19 (cubic metres)

Again assuming the moon to be a perfect sphere the surface area is given by surface srea = 4×piR^2 = 3.796465×10^13(square metres)

Kind Regards Colin Wright 15/02/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenLadder (talkcontribs) 14:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a perfect sphere. Vsmith (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not far off, but enough to affect the volume and surface area. The Polar radius is given as 1735.97 km (just a couple of km shorter than the equatorial radius). When the surface area is calculated, is it the area of the "lunoid" (equivalent to Earth's geoid at sea level) that is given, or the actual area of mountains and plains? Dbfirs 17:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)