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.
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.
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.
Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014 In section 3.2.1. Titled 'Volcanic features
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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 , 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.
Reference cited in the text:  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.  R.P. Gupta, N. Srivastava, R.K. Tiwari, 2014. Evidences of relatively new volcanic flows on the Moon, Curr. Sci., 107, 3, 454-460  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.  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.
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 (talk • contribs)
@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)
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)
i think my picture is better. [] Rmotta81 (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Rmotta81: Great picture! Wikipedia uses free images whenever possible. If you'd like, you may upload your picture to the Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia's sister site that stores freely licensed media. If you upload your image there, you have to agree to select a license for your photo that allows anyone to use the image for any purpose (including commercial), while crediting you as the author. I recommend the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license, but there are a few to choose from. Ideally, you should also update the source your image (astrobin and others, if there are any) stating its new license. Once you've uploaded it, using it in the article may be discussed. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs 01:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)