Talk:Moon

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)