Talk:Moon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 28, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 8, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 15, 2006 Featured topic candidate Promoted January 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed January 14, 2007 Peer review Reviewed April 30, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted May 18, 2010 Featured article review Kept June 13, 2021 Featured topic removal candidate Demoted A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 19, 2011. Current status: Featured article

This  level-2 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Moon / Solar System Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Top-importance).

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

On 10 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Moon to The Moon. The result of the discussion was Not moved.

The semi major axis of an ellipse like the moon's orbit would be the average of its perigee (362,600 km) and apogee (405,500 km) values (both of which are unsourced, by the way). That computed number is 384,000 km but the semi major axis stated in the side table is 384,399 km. This could just be a rounding discrepancy, but if the semi major axis has 6 significant digits then the apogee and perigee should too. Astronomical measurements are known for a high degree of precision.

The source of the semi major axis, eccentricity, orbital period, mean radius, etc. are a "mineralogy/geochemistry" review. Data like this should probably come from an astronomy source — ideally, an astrometric source. Elert (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Little edit at the end here for full disclosure. Is there an accepted source for this info? Is there a, for lack of a better word, "authority" when it comes to the moon's orbital parameters, etc.? I ask because I want to know myself and I haven't found anything suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elert (talk • contribs) 06:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JPL mean orbital elements are probably the closest thing to an authoritative source for solar system orbital parameters Whyistheskyblue1 (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whyistheskyblue1: JPL isn't what we're using here, and probably for good reason. The Moon's orbit is complicated. Right now, we give four different sets of values, in a rather haphazard, inconsistent, and poorly sourced way:

• The infobox to this article: q=362600 km, Q=405400 km, a=384399 km (no source for the first two, and a 2006 paper about mineralogy for the last one)

  Elert is right that those three numbers, which don't come from the same source, are not consistent with each other.

• The #Position and appearance section of this article: q=356400 km, Q=406700 km, mean distance=384400 km (with two sources, of which neither actually gives those numbers, making them uncited)
• The infobox to Orbit of the Moon: q=363228.9 km (range 356400–370400 km), Q=405400 km (range=404000–406700 km), a=384748 km, mean distance=385000 km (no source for the first two, and two somewhat obscure papers from the 1980s for the other two)
• The #Elliptical shape section of Orbit of the Moon: q=362600 km, Q=405400 km, a=384400 km (coming with a ^{[citation needed]} tag)
• Lunar_distance#Value: q=363296 km (range 356400-370300 km), Q=405504 km (range 404000-406700 km), a=384399 km, mean distance=385000.6 km. This is the only one of the four articles that is properly sourced, and that explains the apparent inconsistency. 383397 km, 384399 km, 384400 km, 385000 km and 385001 km are all correct, because they refer to slightly different things.

Lunar distance doesn't cite JPL either for any of those values, but at least it says exactly what it means, and cites sources that are specifically about lunar ranging. Renerpho (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last "paragraph" of the Etymology and Names section is a dog's breakfast of a run-on that needs to be reworked. However, I am unable to make head nor tails of it, and would risk botching the intended meaning if I took the red pen to it which it sorely requires. Someone, please fix this mess. 73.4.237.111 (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, changing the commas in the excerpt below to em dashes—or simply removing the redundant clause between them— would greatly improve the legibility.

Diana, one of whose symbols was the Moon and who was often regarded as the goddess of the Moon, was also called Cynthia

73.4.237.111 (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a shot at straightening out that paragraph, based on the other Wikipedia articles. Special-T (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thanks. 73.4.237.111 (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there's also Kordylewski cloud 83.23.83.39 (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]