Talk:Moon/Archive 5

message: This 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title: Moon-Earth distance as related to picture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: A  discussion on the Bad Astronomy&Universe Today forum expains that breakaway will not happen. Saros136 12:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunar Breakaway 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Change "selenography" to "the lunar landscape"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Navigational footers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Inclination" of the lunar orbit 

message: The mass of Moon given in kilograms is much too accurate. 84.10.114.122 10:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon mass 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Combine "eclipse" and "occultation" sections? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2 column format 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Renominate for GA or FA status? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Alternative to "Proposed move" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gerstenkorn's event 

message: 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)
replies: text: When you say "frozen" do mean protected? GizzaChat © 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. — RJH (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Are you sure that's true? Makewater 22:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you said, it's the Latin name... this is the English Wikipedia, so we use "Moon". --Ckatzchatspy 20:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  It is not official. Give me a reference. Lunokhod 15:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lol, then you'll have to cite all of the other episodes where it's called Luna, and where they call other moons (besides Luna) 'the moon' as well! --SuperLuigi31 15:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moon has no formal name?

message: 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! <grin>  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)
thread_title:  GA on hold--explanation 

message: What is the equatorial circumference and distance around the middle of the moon, is it something like say 2100 miles round ? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 10.9 Mm or 6800 miles. Multiply the diameter by pi (3.1416). Saros136 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Question

message: 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. — RJH (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: That, um, picture of the moon

message: 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)
thread_title: Earth's slowing rotation?

message: 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)
thread_title: PASSED GA

message: The following section of text has a  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. — RJH (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a suitable citation. — RJH (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon in the Middle Ages 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: On Gravity

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  moon picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: How about giving us a reputable source for starters? Lunokhod 17:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We Mooninites have advanced far beyond your primitive earth concept of "sources". thx1138 07:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Moon Purchase