Talk:Moon/Archive 5

Moon-Earth distance as related to picture
- used in the article - claims to show the correct distance between the Earth and the moon. However, the diameter of the Earth is about 12,700 km, and the perigee is listed as 363,000 km, which would mean that one should be able to fit 28,6 Earths in the picture between the Earth and the Moon. From a rough measure, the picture's distance is far too short, about half the correct distance. Maybe the creator has mixed up radius and diameter in the process. Narssarssuaq 15:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed this same thing, and did some measurement on the high resolution version of the image. In that image, based on the size of the Earth, each pixel spans roughly 30.27 km.  At that scale, the Moon's image is the correct size, but the center-to-center distance between the two bodies is little more than 246,000 km (8135 pixels).   This is 32% closer than the perigee distance and nearly 40% closer than apogee. The other diagram in the article which purports to depict the Earth-Moon system to scale suffers even more severely from the opposite problem.  If one uses the depicted diameter of the Earth as a reference, then the depicted perigee distance in this diagram is about 672,000 km! — Opelio 08:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I introduced Earth_to_moon_vertical1.png, a modification of Earth_to_moon_vertical.png to correctly depict the Earth-Moon distance. Earth and Moon images were reduced in size by 0,642. I also introduced Earth and Moon to scale.png to substitute Earth and Moon to scale.svg, increasing the diameters of Earth and Moon. I think now everything is fine.Tó campos 14:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a horizontal version of this image that is correctly scaled? There are some on the wikicommons, but I haven't gone through the exercise of measuring everything to make sure they are accurate. Lunokhod 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The image "Earth to moon vertical1.png" is STILL not to scale. I measured the distance and the Moon is placed 50 Earth radii away, whereas it should be 60!!! Could the author of this Image fix this AND delete all older version so that they are not used? I am going to use the image Earth-Moon2.jpg, as this has the correct distance (though I have not checked the relative diameters of the bodies). Lunokhod 17:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Lunar Breakaway
It's my understanding that the Moon becomes about an inch or so more distant every year, according to measurements using the reflection time of light bounced off of a mirror left there from one of the early missions. This bit isn't on the main page as far as I could tell (unless I missed it somehow), but I think it ought to be. Additionally, I've heard that the Moon will eventually break away from the Earth's gravity some 20,000 to 40,000 years from now--I don't have the numbers on hand, but they really should be added to the main page as well. I'll be back here if I find anything. Sweetfreek 09:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article says the distance is increasing at about 4 m per century. But it is nowhere near true that the Moon will break away from the Earth in 20 to 40 thousand years....or ever, probably. If the distance increased at this rate for 40k years, Luna would be 1.6 km (1 mi) farther away. Saros136 09:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A discussion on the Bad Astronomy&Universe Today forum expains that breakaway will not happen. Saros136 12:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Change "selenography" to "the lunar landscape"?
I propose changing the section title "selenography" to "the lunar landscape". As a lunar scientist, I am always confused by what "selenology" and "selenography" actually mean. Besided being confusing, this practice of replaceing "geo" by "seleno" is stupid, because that means we need to do the same for all the planets and moons! (what is the "geography of Europa or Io"?). Lunokhod 22:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only do we have to wonder about Iapetus, but does "geometry" become "lunametry" on the Moon? And what does it become on Miranda?  What the heck, I've changed the name to "Landscape".  mdf 20:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Navigational footers
Does everyone think it is necessary to have three navigational footers at the base of this article (Moon, solar system, and natural satellites)? Given that the latter two are linked in the footer for "Moon", I propose removing the solar system and natural satellite footers. Lunokhod 06:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Inclination" of the lunar orbit
The article says the following under "Orbital characteristics"
 * Inclination varies between 28.60° and 18.30° (5.145 396° to ecliptic) see below

This is confusing, and possibly wrong. First, I suspect that the first number is the inclination with respect to the Earth's equatorial plane. If so this should be stated, but I am not sure why anyone would want to know this number. The reason this varies is because of the precession of the lunar orbit plane and the Earth's rotation axis. Second, while the 5.145 number is correct, what is "396°"? Lunokhod 16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is with respect to the Earth's equator, because that is the default way to report satellite inclinations: to the primary's equator. The article text explains this in detail. For your other question, the ecliptic inclination is given to six decimals. Urhixidur 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Color as optical illusion
The text of the article seems to indicate that the color of the moon is an optical illusion because we have nothing to compare it too. The text comes right after the paragraph describing the actual illusion of the moon looking larger when it is close to the horizon and is written such to make it look true. This is patently absurd, as later in the article there is a daytime picture of the moon where you can easily compare its color to the clouds (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Moon_over_cumulus.jpg). Take that photo and cut the moon out and paste it onto the cloud tops which have the sun full shining on them, and the moon is still the whitest object in the picture.

The reality is that an object the same size and distance with a higher albedo would definitely look brighter, but it would not make the moon look any less white. Kurt 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is necessarily the case. We see the Moon as being made of light material because we have no perceptual information about how brightly it is lit. By placing another high-albedo surface physically next to the Moon, we'd be providing information about the brightness of the illumination and our visual systems would be able to make a more accurate calculation of the reflectance of the Moon - it would appear darker.


 * There is an excellent demonstration of this effect. Seen by the audience, it goes as follows. In a dark room, they see a small square of card or similar. It is lit by a hidden light and appears white. The presenter then brings up another square adjacent to the first. This one appears brighter, and the first one now appears not-quite-white. A third square is brought up. This one is brighter than the other two. It appears really white, and the first two appear definitely grey. This procedure continues until there are 5 squares in a row. The last one appears dazzling white, the original one appears mid-grey, and the remaining three are graded in between. This demonstration shows that the perceived lightness of a surface can be affected by the reflectance of adjacent surfaces. The effect is compelling.


 * Finally, the room lights are turned on and the hidden lights are turned off. The first square (which once appeared white) is now seen to be black.


 * The point of this demo is that the audience initially have no idea how brightly the first square is lit. The appearance of the next 4 squares (under the same illuminant) provides information about the illumination and hence the audience start to make more accurate judgments about the reflectance of the first square.


 * I can't see why the same effect wouldn't work if the Moon was our first "square" and we had some suitably gigantic sheets of grey and white paper.

Macboff 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Moon mass
The mass of Moon given in kilograms is much too accurate. 84.10.114.122 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC), a casual visitor, Poland.

Combine "eclipse" and "occultation" sections?
I think that the occultation section is too short to be its own section. What if we combine this information with the section eclipse? Lunokhod 08:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

2 column format
I changed the "refernces" and "see also" to two column format. I think it is better, but I'm not 100% sure. Feel free to change it back if you don't like it. Lunokhod 18:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Renominate for GA or FA status?
As you might have noticed, I have been making a lot of edits to this page recently. I am about done, and only want to add a few more references and clean up the "external links" section. Feel free to ask questions or make changes. I am sure that there are a few typos. I think it would be good to find an image demonstrating the giant impact event, preferrably an animation.

I removed some images from sections that were either redundant, or had nothing to do with the section. I realize that there are very many good photos of the Moon, but I think we need to be careful that this page doesn't become a photo gallery.

In a few weeks after people have had a chance to digest the additions, I'd like to either resubmit this for Good or Featured article status. I'm not sure which route is the best, but as this is somewhat long, it has been suggested that the FA route might be more appropriate. I'm not quite sure how to do this, so does anyone have any ideas? Lunokhod 13:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move, per improper naming convention and WP:SNOW (see also recent discussion on Talk:White House). Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Moon to The Moon. "Moon" is a somewhat ambigious referance as "moon" can refer to any natural satellite. The confusion is apperant on the introduction itself. The intention of the requested move is to make "moon" a disambiguation page. Also, no one would ever say "They landed on Moon". It's always "The Moon". Voortle 18:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'd like to propose closing this move discussion before it gets started, as it runs contrary to this Wikipedia convention. Articles are not supposed to start with "The", "A", or "An", as demonstrated by Netherlands. (The existing redirect at The Moon should stay, though.) --Ckatz chat spy  20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case, the article title should start with "the", seeings as how it's ambiguous without the "the", unlike the case with netherlands, where there are no other netherlands. Voortle 21:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I second that! Even the article for The Ohio State University is called Ohio State University... (Wink ;) Awolf002 20:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Rolling Stones however, is not at Rolling Stones. Either this should be moved to The Moon, or that should be moved to Rolling Stones as both have "the" in their names. Voortle 23:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The dab sentance at the beginning is sufficient. -- Beardo 01:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're certainly free to propose moving The Rolling Stones. However, that article has no bearing on this particular discussion, which is in regards to a proposed move against Wikipedia guidelines. --Ckatz chat spy  00:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose move - support rapid closing. -- Beardo 21:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The Moon is our moon, which isn't the only moon. It should be at The Moon and moon should disambiguate between The Moon and natural satellite. Voortle 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Really don't see a good reason to move. We call it "the moon" because, in a terrestrial context, it is "the" moon. But when I write about Titan, it's perfectly natural to refer to that as "the moon" within its own context, or to refer to an asteroid's satellite that way when discussing the parent - every moon can be called "the moon" at some point. "The moon" by no means abolishes ambiguity in all contexts, is opposed to one of our most well-established style guides, and looks clumsy. Shimgray | talk | 00:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Moon is the name of our moon just like The Rolling Stones is the name of the band, not Rolling Stones. <>

Not true. We call it "the Moon" (capitalized), because its name includes "the", just like "Earth" sometimes has "the" before it, though unlike the Moon, not always. Voortle 01:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Try Googling the phrase - I think you'll find that is not the case. Even NASA uses "the Moon" when referring to the Moon, and I would suspect that most cases where you find "The Moon" (other than grammatical errors) are sentences which begin with "The".


 * Oppose - absolutely not. Runs afoul of this naming convention. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 06:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally Oppose wasn't this already done about a month ago? FiggyBee 07:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to "The Moon". (It doesn't really matter if there is a redirect page.) However, I stongly favor renaming the page to "The Moon." Anyone who works with the Moon knows that it is "The Moon." This comes up so often that I propose either writing some form of FAQ, or explaining this better in the intro paragraphy. It is "Earth's moon", "The moon of the Earth", "The first moon of Saturn", and "Saturn's first moon." However, "The Moon" used by itself when refering to our moon is always capitalized.Lunokhod 18:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A question, then... if that is the case, why does the lead paragraph say "It has no formal English name other than 'the Moon'"? (I'm not advocating a change, mind you, just asking.) --Ckatz chat spy  20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I understand... The first word of the page "Moon" is the name of the wikipedia entry (I thought it was just a header). I agree that this is confusing, even though it might be wikipedia policy to drop the "the". I think that this is something an admin will have to consider, as both "Earth" and "the Earth" can be used, but not likewise for the Moon.Lunokhod 20:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Okay, consider,
 * Pacific Ocean, Himalayas, River Soar, and almost every other geographical feature are prefaced by "the" when used as a noun.
 * CIA, Inland Revenue, Gestapo and almost every other government organisation are prefaced by "the" when used as a noun.
 * 1970s, 1980s, 13th Century, and almost every other span of years are prefaced by "the" when used as a noun.
 * Can you tell me how these are these any different from "Moon"? Like these other examples, "Moon" does not have "the" in front of it when used as an adjective - "Moon rocket", "Moon dust", etc. FiggyBee 23:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. You are working under the (incorrect) hypothesis that english is a logical language! Also, this is what Wikipedia says. "It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules carved in stone. As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated, and there may be cases where a particular convention is "obviously" inappropriate. But when in doubt, follow convention." I submit that this is an obvious exception to the rule. Lunokhod 10:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well how is it an "obvious" exception? I would contend that it isn't an "obvious" exception, and in fact it isn't an exception at all. "The" is not actually part of the name of the Moon any more than it is part of the name of the Pacific Ocean.  If you were counting objects in the sky, you would say "I can see twenty-three stars and one Moon", not "one The Moon" (whereas you could feasably say, for example, "one The Hague").  FiggyBee 11:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I would say ""I can see twenty-three stars and one moon"!
 * Here are some examples I found this evening: NASA ; the IAU ( and ); science abstracts ... the references I'm finding suggest that "the" is only capitalized at the start of a sentence, and that it is "the Moon". --Ckatz chat spy  11:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Per Common Usage. The Moon, when used as a noun, is always preceded by the article "the." Moon should redirect to natural satellite. Jecowa 07:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Avoid article ajectives. Jecowa 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. Thousands of things of which only one exist are, when used as a noun in a sentence, always preceded with the definite article.  Wikipedia policy is not to use the definite article in article names in these cases, as illustrated by the examples given. FiggyBee 09:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * oppose In the rule of thumb, given in the naming conventions article, the key is whether the definite article would be capitalized in text; if it is, then it should be used in the title, but not otherwise. Saros136 10:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not alone. The online Encyclopedia Britannica has simply "Moon" for the title. Same goes for the Yahoo education encyclopedia, Encarta, enotes, Columbia Encyclopedia, and others. Found this through a google searc, for enyclopedia and moon. I'm not saying that decides the issue here, but it's something to think about. Saros136 11:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Don't need to say anything new. It has been well said above.  Milchama 12:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SNOWBALL per WP:NC#Avoid.... -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Omicronpersei8. Also, see the Sun. --Serge 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Try to find just one dictionary or encyclopedia that has entries beginning with "the". Urhixidur 00:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Articles should not start with "the". Dr. Submillimeter 09:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose &mdash; Adding to the pile on; I have nothing new to add that hasn't been mentioned above. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Dr. Sub, and there is only one "Moon". siafu 20:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposal. Bubba ditto 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alternative to "Proposed move"
The above problem concerning the name of our moon is going to resurface every so often, so I propose that instead of doing anything concering the "proposed move", we instead do the following:


 * Create a page called Name of our moon (feel free to add a "the"!).

Obviously, each language has its own name, and some english speakers always bring up the statement that "its Luna", even though no one calls it that. Each possibility could be mentioned, including its history, and the pros and cons of such a name could be given. A list of foreign names could be given in an infobox. The rules concerning phases such as "new moon" vs. "new Moon" could be listed.

Additionally, there is a definite change in practice of using "the moon" before Apollo to "the Moon" today that would be interesting to document. If you read the Apollo era literature, it is generally not capitalized, and astronomers and other disciplines continue to not capitalize it to this day. Many of the lunar spacecraft pages on Wikipedia do not capitalize the Moon. In my opinion, the people who capitalize the Moon are generally lunar scientitsts, those who work with our moon in some manner, those that work with other moons and realize the difffernce that a capital letter makes, or linguistic purists. Lunokhod 14:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you taken a grammar class before? Proper Nouns (a specific person, place, thing or idea) are always capitalized and Common Nouns (a non-specific person, palce, thing or idea) are not. Therefore, when the term Moon is used to refer to Earth's moon, it must be capitalized, and when it is used as a synonym for natural satellite then it is not capitalized. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you should take a grammar course before editing Wikipedia again. --216.106.109.150 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true. The Moon is often, in very reputable, well-edited works, not capitalized. "The moon" can be thought of as short for "the moon of our Earth". I do capitalize it, though. Saros136 23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Anonymous, You must be responding to the above section of "Proposed move", and not this alternative, as I agree. Please move your comment to the appropriate section. Lunokhod 20:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gerstenkorn's event
What was the (purported) Gerstenkorn event? What is the current status of the theory? Heard about this a while ago but still not actually sure exactly what was being suggested. Should be something in Wikipedia. Cutler 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed (but probably isn't) at tidal acceleration. In essence, all this boils down to is: If you use the current rate of tidal dissipation and extrapolate the evolution of the lunar orbit backwards in time, the Moon would have been at the Roche limit about 2 billion years ago. This is the Gertenkorn event. There is no problem, becuase tidal dissipation in our oceans is not constant with time. Lunokhod 22:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Anyone else think that this article should be frozen? There has been a lot of vandalism in the last few weeks; seems like at least once a day. HammerHeadHuman 19:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * When you say "frozen" do mean protected? GizzaChat  &#169; 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected the article. Be sure to make a request for unprotection when things cool down. A Train take the 01:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How would one know when things have cooled down? Since the vandals are being blocked, we would never know how many attempts have been made. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the vandalism inclue the words "Google" and "Cheese", by any chance?(AndrewAnorak 11:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

Moon has no formal name?
Are you sure that's true? Makewater 22:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Does the official Latin name for Earth's primary moon, Luna, count for nothing? The entire debate on the naming of said article does not refer to it -.- ... I suppose that I should formally propose making the article currently entitled 'Moon' instead entitled 'Luna' or 'Luna (moon)'. The article already entitled 'Luna' should be an official disambiguation page anyway. --SuperLuigi31 20:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As you said, it's the Latin name... this is the English Wikipedia, so we use "Moon". --Ckatz chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  20:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please let me know what your source is for stating that "Luna" is the formal name of our Moon. Could you also please tell us why you think that Moon's name is Luna? I have never understood why people make such comments. Lunokhod 03:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since when did we start abandoning Latin?!? We (and by 'we', in this context, I mean speakers of English) borrowed a good deal from French, a Romance Language! I thihk that Luna is the formal name of our moon because calling it 'the Moon' can also refer to any natural satellite! Don't get me wrong, it is of course larger than any of Earth's other natural satellites (which includes rocks caught in its orbit temporarily), but calling it 'the Moon' doesn't do us any good as a future spacefaring race! Getting Luna mixed up with an unnamed moon can be bad for landings on other planets. We're on course to build a base on Luna, and some day on Mars! Whilst I'm on this subject, I also want to address the formal name of 'The Sun'. It's Sol. Anyway, where do you think we get 'Solar' and 'Lunar' from? --SuperLuigi31 17:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes current knowledge; It is not supposed to be used to advocate a personal opinion. If you can find a reference, perhaps from the International Astronomical Union, that discusses this topic, then we could add this to the article. If not, I will cite a star trek episode that calls our moon the Moon. Lunokhod 06:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not being native English speaker, it's a bit difficult to enter the debate. But in my own mother tong, we would use an upper case letter to distinguish between the Moon which stands for the natural satellite of Earth that anyone can see even by day light, from moons which can be any natural satellite of any planet. And it seems to be corroborate by the IAU, if you search for "moon" you will find it either in all lower case like "moon" and in each context it refers to natural satellites of a planet, and you can find it with a upper cased M like "Moon" and in these context they talk about the only external planetoid where a human set foot. They even make reference to "the Earth's moon"... Some more information spelling of names in English, but it clearly states that <blockquote cite="http://www.iau.org/SPELLING_OF_NAMES.240.0.html">It is emphasized, however, that language conventions are the responsibility of individual nations or groups of nations. While the IAU is willing to help to achieve a minimum degree of orthographic consistency as regards astronomical terms, it cannot undertake to do so for all languages, nor is it in the power of the IAU to enforce the application of any such conventions. Huygens 25 18:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "official" latin name does account for little here. Maybe as an alternate poetic name for the Moon. -- KarlHallowell 00:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not official. Give me a reference. Lunokhod 15:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

--SuperLuigi31 15:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold--explanation
I have placed this article on hold primarily because the criteria 1a and 1b need some work.

GA Criteria: 1(a). Fail. It is unevenly written. Most sections are clear enough, but fail criterion a), which requires an article to have "compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;" Here, consider that an article about the moon is going to be read by a third grader with a science project and the hapless parent trying to help-- you see the immediate problem.  From the intro on, it's college level slogging.

You need to structure this article so the basic, easy material that everyone looks for is first, (the infoboxes help, but the text has to also start out with the basics), then increases in complexity as you go down the page. The "fun" things of interest to the casual reader, like human understanding, observation, and exploration, should be early on, not last.

1(b) Not quite "fail" but not ready to pass: The criterion states: "it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles)"  Here, there is some logic to the structure, particularly where you have sections divided into headings and subheadings, but the broad overall organization is a bit haphazard and doesn't seem to have an overall plan. The lead section is particularly problematic, giving a smattering of unrelated information some of which seems to have no coherent reason for being there.

1(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline;--This is mostly OK. You might be overdoing the charts and infoboxes a bit, the page gets a bit cluttered at times, but given the topic, this may be inevitable.

1(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided. --This criteria passes for the most part, though see 1(a) for a caution to not freak out the little kids! You may want to consider if some material should be moved to other articles or not.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Overall, passes. However, with a caveat: a (references): Some sections are much better sourced than others. For example, the eclipse section is virtually unsourced. Other places, like the origins section, have some facts sourced, but other things, like the discredited theories and why they are discredited, have no cites for those who want to look deeper into the subject. b (inline citations):  form acceptable c (reliable): Ok d (OR): OK

3. It is broad in its coverage. PASS. Excellent in this regard. a (major aspects): yes b (focused): yes

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. PASS with a minor caution to not be too dismissive or condescending in tone on old theories that are discredited. a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable. While you keep it protected, I suspect! PASS

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. PASS--Excellent.

In short, organize it so it is more readable and it will be ready to pass. Montanabw 07:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
What is the equatorial circumference and distance around the middle of the moon, is it something like say 2100 miles round ? http&#58;//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 10.9 Mm or 6800 miles. Multiply the diameter by pi (3.1416). Saros136 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That is about the crossing the United States about 3 or 4 times from east to west and then back west back to east and adding on a smidgen more of mileage I think, I was once told that the United States was about 8000 miles around the equator, but someone said the figure is much greater, and is like 13,500 miles or something like that, anyone have precise and confident figures on this. The moon is 6800 miles more or less around the circular equator and the earth is ? http&#58;//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 16:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The equator doesn't pass though the U.S. I don't know what you mean, saying "miles around the equator". For an idea of the U.S. size, from Boston to San Jose is 2690 mi. The Earth is about 24,900 mi around the equator. Saros136 08:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Walking around the Moon's equator would cover a somewhat greater distance, because you would jiggle up and down as you came across mountains and mare. Urhixidur 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That, um, picture of the moon
If you're going to lock the article, you should probably do it when a legit picture is up rather than a picture of the moon from a silent movie.
 * The image is in a template, rather than being on this page. So locking the Moon page doesn't help in that regard, unfortunately. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Earth's slowing rotation?
The article states that "As a result of the conservation of angular momentum, the increasing semimajor axis of the Moon is accompanied by a gradual slowing of the Earth's rotation by about 0.002 seconds per day." This is obviously wrong, as it results in a change of 1 second every 500 days. It should say "about 0.002 seconds per day per century." Itsmekirill 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

PASSED GA
You have been doing some terrific work to this article in terms of clarity and organization. I will pass it as a Good Article, however, please continue as you have been going, it isn't quite ready to be a featured article yet, but you are well on your way to making the kind of changes needed. Congrats! Montanabw 00:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Moon in the Middle Ages
The following section of text has a Fact template attached, but I have been having difficulty trying to track down a good source to cite:


 * By the Middle Ages, before the invention of the telescope, more and more people began to recognize the Moon as a sphere, though they believed that it was "perfectly smooth".[citation needed]

If no reference is available, this may need to be re-worded. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a suitable citation. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Need for Terrestrial Satellite System page OR info on other moons of Earth
Jdmalouff - your recent additions to Moon have been removed. Thank you for the contribution, but unfortunately the material you added duplicated content that was already present. The section on Cruithe etc. was already incorporated into Moon, while the information on "Lilith" - a disproved concept - only served to add confusion. (Lunokhod had already removed this information during a big cleanup of the article recently.) --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  17:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is every other planet with a moon system has a unique page for the whole system - Mars' natural satellites, Jupiter's natural satellites, etc. The Solar Satellites and SolarSystem footers at the bottom of every Solar System planet or moon article link directly to those pages (see below). Twice in the last 6 months I've searched for additional satellites of Earth via the link to the Terrestrial satellite system on those footers and instead been directed to the page for the Moon itself - obviously not the information I was looking for (I forgot the second time that I’d already looked). If I've done it twice there have got to be other people doing the same thing. Yes, the information is there, but it's one sentence buried in a subsection that no one would ever think to look in (what do other moons of Earth have to do with Luna's orbit and relationship to Earth?). If the Terrestrial satellite system is not to have its own page independent of that of the Moon - which I feel it should, as does every other planet in the system with a moon - then additional information about other natural satellites (even if none of them are actually "real") needs to be somewhere easy for people to find!

Jdmalouff 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should add this information to the disambiguation link at the top of the article. The reason that "the other moon's" info is in the section "Orbit and relation to the Earth" is the following: These objects are NOT satellites of the Earth! The are just in an orbit that brings them close to the Earth every once in a while (see horseshoe orbit). I agree that if you didn't know this to start, then you wouldn't know where to look for this in the Moon article (or as you might prefer, the "Luna" article), which is becoming too long. Does anyone have a proposal on what to add to the DAB? The problem is that there does not appear to be a centralized page that discusses all of these objects. Perhaps this is reason enough to start one? But what to call it? Lunokhod 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Lunokhod said: "The reason that "the other moon's" info is in the section "Orbit and relation to the Earth" is the following: These objects are NOT satellites of the Earth! The are just in an orbit that brings them close to the Earth every once in a while" -- Yes yes, I realize they're not satellites Earth and that that is why they are not listed as such, but why would anyone looking for information about them look in a section about Luna's orbit and relation to Earth? These other bodies have nothing to do with Luna's orbit or Luna's relation to Earth... But I agree with you - a centralized page discussing them all is the way to go over a subsection on Luna's page. Jdmalouff 19:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where do you propose that we put this information? One possibility is to have one sentence in the introduction, and then not discuss it at all afterwards. Personally, I think that it is logical that this info is in the section that it is currently in, as the discussion is only a disclaimer that there really are no other natural satellites of the Earth. Open to suggestions... Lunokhod 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You admit that if one does not already know that there are asteroids orbiting the sun which have been mistaken for satellites of Earth then one wouldn't know where to look for the information as it is currently presented. If one needs to know the information one is looking up in order to find it, then the resource is not of much use as an educational tool. As I said, ideally I would like to create an Earth's natural satellites page, like the pages for Mars, Jupiter, etc, which would state that Earth has only one natural satellite, but that others have been suggested and dismissed. I would be happy to create that page, but it would be useless unless linked via the footer boxes as are the others, which is not something I know how to do. Failing such a radical suggestion as to treat Earth the same as all the other planets, I think there are three obvious options, any one of which is acceptable as far as I'm concerned:
 * Create a new article for "Additional moons of Earth" (which would of course explain that none exist, but provide information on those that have been suggested) and link it in the disambiguation section with a clear description, such as This article is about Earth's moon. For moons in general, see natural satellite. For other suggested moons of Earth, see Additional moons of Earth. For other uses, see Moon (disambiguation).
 * Create a new article as described above and link it from the first sentence of the Moon article.
 * Do what I did originally today before it was reverted and create a new subsection in the Moon article with a note in the first sentence.Jdmalouff 21:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that a new article might be warranted, as many people over time have searched for or thought they found another moon of the Earth. An article describing how this has happened sounds like a good idea. --Patteroast 22:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing with a new article - I would be very cautious about calling it "Additional moons of Earth" or "Natural satellites of Earth". Even if the article explains that no others exist (as mentioned above), those titles could easily create confusion. Perhaps a better title would be "Earth's natural satellite", to emphasize that there is only one (and to match the other names). We could then follow the model of Mars or Pluto (the gas giants are probably structured differently, due to the large number of objects), and provide a summary of Moon along with details on 3753 Cruithne and the other co-orbitals. This article could then be linked from the templates. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think 'Natural satellites of Earth' might be best. 'Natural satellite of Earth' would seem to be just about the Moon, which we already have an article about. 'Natural satellites' could start out very explicitly stating that there is only one, but in the past there have been hypothetical proposals, and there are also interesting cases of nearly-moons. Also, it'd probably be useful for it to be part of Category:Hypothetical bodies of the Solar System. --Patteroast 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I think that it would be a bad idea to call this page something like "sateliltes of the Earth", as the title is not factual, even though this might help people locate this information. I think that a link in the disambiguation to something else, such as "Earth co-orbitals" would be better. For instance: For information regarding other objects orbiting in the vicinity of the Earth, see Earth co-orbitals. This is a bit ambiguous as it might be confused with NEAs. Just an idea... Lunokhod 23:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely. Again, naming it 'Natural satellites of Earth' goes against the pattern for all of the other articles, and is just plain wrong. (You wouldn't label a photo album "Our children" if you only had one, after all.) If we decide to go with a "natural satellite" variant, "Earth's natural satellite" leaves no room for confusion about there being more than one and matches the existing naming convention, while allowing for discussion of other potential and/or failed candidates. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is one option, though the three lines of diambiguation might be too much

Another option would be to add a link to Earth co-orbitals in the navigational footer (or both). In any case, we need to creat the topic first. Does anyone have a problem with Earth co-orbitals? (see co-orbital moon). Lunokhod 00:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer Natural satellites of Earth, because even if it is just plain wrong, the topic under discussion is the existence or nonexistence of multiple moons. It's a question. The answer may be no, but that doesn't mean the question itself doesn't exist. Natural satellite of Earth sans s would clearly indicate Luna only - people looking for information about bodies that are not Luna would not click something with that title. If I want to ask you about your children, unless I already know that you only have one, I ask you about your children, not your child.
 * ... But if everyone else is dead-set against Natural satellites of Earth, I can live with something like Earth co-orbitals. Jdmalouff 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also a page called Quasi-satellite. These objects are apparently different than those in horseshoe orbits, and I think that text in this article probably confuses the two. Lunokhod 20:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I added Quasi-satellite to the navigational footer under "orbit". This isn't a perfect solution, but its better than nothing. Lunokhod 21:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been, though unverified, reports of temporary sattilites of earth. (which i think is an interesting topic, for any planet.). According to a short, one paragraph article in a book that i have subsequently lost. In the 1960s, there was an object that, for at least a couple of years, had an orbit around Earth, much like that of the moon. While it was not really visible, it looked more like a star or an airplane most likely, it still seemed to be a natural sattilite. Then it subsequently disappeared, most likely due to its orbit. Anyway, my point is to just explore the possibility of temporary satellites orbiting Earth, and other planets.

16 Permutations of the Moon
What are the 16 Permutations of the Moon? Robert C Prenic 09:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On Gravity
An object can never escape another object's gravity. There are parts of the entry that refer to this, and it is inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aahpandasrun (talk • contribs) 11:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Moon rocks
I have begun a sub-section on moon rocks within the origin and geologic evolution section. I don't think this should be too detailed, just enough to survey the subject, so it is in balance with the other topics. I have got the highlands roughed out and an intro for mare basalts. I am working from memory right now, so i need to go back and check the numbers but all are very close. Also need to add references. will add more on mare basalt groups, but need to check before i do that.

I also added some more explanation to the basin-forming impacts used to date eras. These are pretty important: they are not craters per se, much too big, and do not comform to crater terminology (simple or with central uplift). Multi-ring basins only form from really big events.

It could be that eventually we should add separate pages for mare basalts and lunar highlands rocks, with more detail on each. Geodoc 05:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A few good pages to discuss geochemistry in detail are lunar mare, geology of the Moon, and Moon rock. After adding a lot of material to this page myself, I am in the process of trying to trim it down in length. A dedicated page discussing the lunar sample classes might be called for as well (it's not clear if Moon rock is the right place for this). Lunokhod 10:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think its best to keep each page fairly compact, with links to appropriate page. So all or most of this could go on Moon rocks page. I would suggest leaving very short paragraph as a hook, with link to Moon rock page. Same for Geology of Moon -- no need to repeat material on different pages.


 * So when i add more on lunar rocks, i will add it to the Moon rock page, NOT the MOON page. I should also delete most of what i added to Moon page, to minimize repetition. Glad that someone is paying attention! Geodoc 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

moon picture
I am just curious, why is it that the moon in the menu bar is much lighter than the picture entitled "near side of the moon", when they both appear to be the same picture. Has one just been shaded to exemplify the features, or is it an astronomical reason? --Chickenfeed9 21:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The "nearside of the Moon" photo is a compilation of images taken from the Clementine mission. Each sub-image that makes up this mosaic was taken with the sun directly behind the spacecraft, and there are hence no shadows in this image. It is also an image taken in one wavelength, whereas the other image is a true color image. Lunokhod 23:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks for that! So the "near side of the moon" picture is the 'true' image, where the other is fainter. I see now. --Chickenfeed9 15:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Moon Purchase
in late 2006 the Moon was purchased by an 18 year old entrepenuer named Mike Guild. he currently resides in Tampa, FL under an assumed name. he bought the moon from a secret council named the mooners. the purchase amount is unknown but something about a patato sack race was overheard at the last press conference. he has re named the dark side of the moon to ol' blacky and the light side of the moon, Thomas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.254.226.35 (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
 * How about giving us a reputable source for starters? Lunokhod 17:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We Mooninites have advanced far beyond your primitive earth concept of "sources". thx1138 07:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)