| Revision as of 06:35, 16 August 2024 edit27.96.223.17 (talk) →Mass of the Moon needs to be fixed: ReplyTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:39, 15 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,377 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Moon/Archive 16) (bot | ||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{tan}} | |archiveheader = {{tan}} | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Old moves|date=10 June 2024|from=Moon|destination=The Moon|link=Special:Diff/1229571660|result=Not moved}} | {{Old moves|date=10 June 2024|from=Moon|destination=The Moon|link=Special:Diff/1229571660|result=Not moved}} | ||
| {{Annual readership}} | {{Annual readership}} | ||
| == |
== Orbital parameters seem off == | ||
| 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. | |||
| <div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
| :''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' | |||
| 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. ] (]) 06:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The result of the move request was: '''Not moved.''' With 15 opposers and just 3 supporters (including the nom), there is a 5:1 ratio indicating a consensus against the move. This discussion was supposed to close at 5pm on June 17, 2024, but was closed two hours early as there is a ] chance that the change will be successful. <small>(])</small> ] (]) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| * ] → {{no redirect|The Moon}} | |||
| * ] → {{no redirect|Moon}} | |||
| – Earth's moon is almost always preceded by the definite article, and ''moon'' without the definite article more likely refers to a natural satellite. Ergo, this seems like a clear-cut case for moving per the first criterion of ]. ] (]) 17:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :'''Question''': How do you square this with ] being an example on ] where the definite article should not be used? Leaning support btw but think this needs clarifying. ] (]) 17:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::At the risk of ], we'd also need to clarify how the Moon differs from the ], the ], the ], etc. Would the best title be {{-r|The Moon}} or {{-r|The moon}}? (Both currently redirect to Moon.) A compromise would be to move Moon but not Natural satellite, instead moving a suitably modified ] to Moon. ] is unlikely to be the primary topic for the term "Moon", as our article on Earth's moon has nine times more page views and four times more incoming links. ] (]) 18:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] I think I have a problem with the name of the article ], as planets and indeed stars are also natural satellites. So are (the so far I believe purely theoretical) ]s. I know the article points that out, but still. I think the case for the other objects that you mention, is that there are many other moons that are within our consciousness as humans, whereas other solar systems, suns, and Milky Ways are far more abstract constructs. The reason you call it 'The' Moon, is so that you don't confuse it with some other moon, which there are plenty of relatievly close by. ] (]) 12:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{talk quote|planets and indeed stars are also natural satellites}} | |||
| ::::That doesn't matter, as they're not usually described in those terms. We don't pick names firstly striving for some level of technical correctness, we pick ] that are clear to a general readership. I'm sorry, but people can only get confused about this if they're trying to confuse themselves on purpose. | |||
| ::::{{talk quote|The reason you call it 'The' Moon, is so that you don't confuse it with some other moon}} | |||
| ::::No it's not! Not at all! We called it The Moon (in English, in other languages where applicable, etc.) well before we were able to fathom moons orbiting other bodies. Here's some of ]'s Old English from 994: | |||
| ::::{{xt|{{lang|ang|<strong>Sē mōna</strong> næfþ nān lēoht būtan of þǣre sunnan lēoman, and hē is ealra tungla niðemest}}}} | |||
| ::::Likely because it's been of a definite, singular importance to our world. I doubt the meaning when we use the definite article has actually strayed from that. | |||
| ::::Anyway, {{xt|Moon}} is the correct article title. ]] 15:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On the first point, are you suggesting that the term 'natural satellite' is more common than 'moons' when discussing, for example, the ]? | |||
| :::::On the second, are you advocating naming articles based on a 10th century understanding of science? ] (]) 16:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::# I'm suggesting that to most people, ''natural satellite'' and ''moon'' are synonyms. | |||
| ::::::# I'm advocating naming articles based on a holistic understanding of human language, with the example meant to demonstrate how our use of language is often invariant or orthogonal relative to our scientific understanding, as opposed to it inherently making scientific claims itself. You made a big assumption of what people mean when they use language; I pointed out it was a big assumption to make. | |||
| ::::::]] 17:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Ok, I'll take the point on 2 (it may not be the original reason for the definite article, but I think today it helps with clarification). On 1, there's some internal incosistency in article name in this case. Should ] etc. and articles like ] be renamed substituting 'moon(s)' for 'natural satellite(s)'? You cite ] but there's no way that 'natural satellite' sees more usage in common parlance than 'moons', and the titling of these other articles seems to reflect that. ] (]) 17:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::@] actually, going back to point 1., and as we're looking at literature, I'd like to point you at as a slightly more modern counter to Ælfric of Eynsham. Ignore the fact that the pirates are inexplicably French, and navigate to about 3:30 where Earth's moon is confused with ]. ] (]) 10:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I suppose the breadth of this point isn't clear to me, as the context of this passage is very specific. Ambiguity can always arise in situations sufficiently narrow. ]] 13:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I wouldn't worry about it. Just giving you the benefit of my own experience. ] (]) 14:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' “Moon” overwhelmingly refers to ''the'' Moon, not ''a'' moon or moons in general. Renaming '''''natural satellite''''' to '''''moon''''' would probably require ''another '' renaming of '''Moon''' to '''Moon (satellite of Earth)'''; and even if we broke with guidelines and renamed it to '''''The Moon''''', it would still be extremely easy to confuse with ]. Tl;dr this is a whole can of worms that doesn’t need to be opened— the current titles are unambiguous, whereas the proposed titles would make it harder to find either topic despite being ]s. ] (]) 19:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:JPL mean orbital elements are probably the closest thing to an authoritative source for solar system orbital parameters ] (]) 14:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{re|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: | |||
| *'''Interesting but ... no''' Credit where it's due; it's true that, when referring to the Moon as a distinct object, English almost always uses the definite article, whereas for other moons this is not so. Still, I'm not convinced that the proper name includes the "the". Intuitively I would say it does not. Also when used adjunctively ("Moon lander", "Moon rock") it is still referring to the Moon in particular, not moons in general, but no article is used. --] (]) 20:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* 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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' basically per Certes: we'd need to apply this same logic to ], ], etc. We don't need to add the "the" here and there's no real disambiguation issue as our moon is clearly the primary topic. ] (] | ]) 22:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*: {{u|Elert}} is right that those three numbers, which don't come from the same source, are not consistent with each other. | |||
| *'''Support'''. We do always refer to our moon with the definite article, and 'natural satellite' is not the ] for other moons. The very first example given in ] is that using 'the' in a title makes sense in a case like 'the Crown', where 'crown' and 'the Crown' naturally lend themselves to two, separate articles. That's exactly what we have here. (Regarding squaring the circle with the Sun – there are other stars, but there aren't other Suns...) ] (]) 00:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* The ] 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) | |||
| *:Well from the perspective of beings on exoplanets those stars are their sun(s). ] (]) 16:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* The infobox to ]: 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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', per ] and ], uppercased Moon is the proper name (not 'The Moon') per ]. As for 'stars', etc., renaming the natural satellite page ] may work well (please notice that 'Moons' has redirected there since 2004). ] (]) 03:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* The ] section of ]: q=362600 km, Q=405400 km, a=384400 km (coming with a <sup></sup> tag) | |||
| *:Well yes that makes sense per ] as the Earth's moon can't be in the plural just like the Earth's sun. ''']''' (]) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* ]: 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. | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per consistency with Sun (not the Sun) and Earth (not the Earth). Moon overwhelming, with long-term significance, refers to the Earth's moon and not moons in general. ] ] 04:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] 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. ] (]) 11:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' the definite article is a convention when referring to it, but is not actually part of its name. It's called "Moon" not "the Moon". ] ] 12:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is actually part of its name, though. --] (]) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not according to the references in the article. We even have a section on its name that states it's simply "Moon". Do you have references that state that the definite article is actually part of its proper name? ] ] 17:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: doesn't treat "The" as part of the name. ''']''' (]) 17:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Subtle but important – all the sources state Moon is its name. None say that it is its only name. The conditions listed in ] do not seem to me require "the X" to be the ''only'' name for something to implement it as an article title. --] (]) 18:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I think the real difference here is the relative prominence of the articles. Someone typing "moon" in the search box, or linking to it, is overwhelmingly likely to be intending ''this'' article, not the class of objects that includes Io. On the other hand, someone entering "crown" is most likely looking for the type of hat, not details about Britain's unwritten constitution. --] (]) 20:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: It doesn't directly speak to what I was getting at – it's not that there's no difference '''at all''', but for ], the distinction brought up '''isn't relevant''' – but you make a very good point that the proposed redirects would 'invert' ]. --] (]) 20:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. ], not ]. ] (]) 02:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''': see my arguments above. ] (]) 12:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''': expected and canonical example of where a commonly used definite article is omitted for an encyclopedia article title, à la ], ], etc. ]] 15:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Remsense and others, though I could probably get behind the alternative suggestion of moving ] to ] per ]. ] (]) 15:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yep, I like that too. ] (]) 18:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don’t think that’s such a great idea— most non-proper noun article titles are usually in the singular— ] and not ], ] and not ], ] not ], etc. ] (]) 20:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::'Most' being the operative word. ] (]) 16:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::can you provide an example of one that ''isn’t''? ] (]) 13:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::You wrote most. If you think it's 'all', write 'all'. ] (]) 18:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::]. ] (]) 18:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I know you were specifically asked for a single example, but a peek at ] may disappoint as concerns how convincing it is. ]] 19:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::] is another one. ] (]) 19:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::these examples seem to be talking about categorical types of things— an analogue would be “''frum'' moons” with ''frum'' being a specific type of moon. ] (]) 06:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. It should be at ] like with ], ], ], ], ] etc. ] (]) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Etymology grammar == | |||
| *'''Oppose''', per comments above. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue;cursor:help"><span>]</span><sup>(])</sup></span> 04:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Trovatore. ] (]) 21:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Basically, from what I learnt in journalism, titles of articles should omit determiners. Moon is fine and adding "the" is just unnecessary. ] (]) 07:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's great, but ]. ] (]) 18:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::That essay has nothing at all to do with the problem being discussed as far as I can tell. ]] 19:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' per above. Earth's moon is the primary topic for ], and its common name is not ]. ] (]) 20:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) 12:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> | |||
| </div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> | |||
| :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. | |||
| == moon == | |||
| ::], one of whose symbols was the Moon and who was often regarded as the goddess of the Moon, was also called ] | |||
| ⚫ | :] (]) 13:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::I took a shot at straightening out that paragraph, based on the other Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 14:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::::Much better, thanks. ] (]) 14:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :The Moon's '''orbit''' is about 30 times Earth's '''diameter'''. The Moon's '''diameter''' is about 1/4 of Earth's diameter. And no, the Sun does not rotate around Earth so it is not a natural satellite of the Earth. ] (]) 08:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :: |
||
| == |
== Not only one Natural satellite == | ||
| there's also Kordylewski cloud ] (]) 14:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 5.972168e24 kg (mass of the Earth from the Misplaced Pages entry for Earth) | |||
| x 0.0123 (ratio of Moon to Earth, agrees with IAU recommendation of 0.0123000371) | |||
| = 7.3457664e22 kg (mass of Moon) | |||
| or 7.346e22 kg (keeping the same sig. fig. as is currently on the page) | |||
| IAU Division I Working Group, Numerical Standards for Fundamental Astronomy, Astronomical Constants, Current Best Estimates (CBEs) https://iau-a3.gitlab.io/NSFA/NSFA_cbe.html ] (]) 11:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as I can tell from both the cited sources and direct calculations like those above, the current stated figure of {{val|7.342}} × 10<sup>22</sup> is indeed just slightly wrong, and was first (I presume accidentally, as a typo) introduced in ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]]</span> 18:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
Latest revision as of 17:39, 15 December 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| 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. |
|
| 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 Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 28, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This  level-2 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 |
There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. 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. |
Orbital parameters seem off
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)
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)
- 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)
- @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 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- @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:
Etymology grammar
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)
- 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.
- 73.4.237.111 (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I took a shot at straightening out that paragraph, based on the other Misplaced Pages articles. Special-T (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Much better, thanks. 73.4.237.111 (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I took a shot at straightening out that paragraph, based on the other Misplaced Pages articles. Special-T (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Not only one Natural satellite
there's also Kordylewski cloud 83.23.83.39 (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- FA-Class level-2 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-2 vital articles in Physical sciences
- FA-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- FA-Class Astronomy articles
- Top-importance Astronomy articles
- FA-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
- FA-Class Astronomical objects articles
- Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
- FA-Class Moon articles
- Top-importance Moon articles
- Moon task force articles
- FA-Class Solar System articles
- Top-importance Solar System articles
- Solar System task force
- Spoken Misplaced Pages requests