Talk:Moon: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:11, 18 September 2024 editJohnuniq (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators86,667 edits →External links: omg← 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
(36 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 57:		Line 57:
	\|archiveheader = {{tan}}		\|archiveheader = {{tan}}
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|minthreadsleft = 0		\|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 ==
	== Mass of the Moon needs to be fixed ==

			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.
	5.972168e24 kg (mass of the Earth from the Misplaced Pages entry for Earth)

			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)
	x 0.0123 (ratio of Moon to Earth, agrees with IAU recommendation of 0.0123000371)

			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-->
	= 7.3457664e22 kg (mass of Moon)

			:JPL mean orbital elements are probably the closest thing to an authoritative source for solar system orbital parameters ] (]) 14:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
	or 7.346e22 kg (keeping the same sig. fig. as is currently on the page)
			::{{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:
			::* 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)
			::*: {{u\|Elert}} is right that those three numbers, which don't come from the same source, are not consistent with each other.
			::* 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)
			::* 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)
			::* The ] section of ]: q=362600 km, Q=405400 km, a=384400 km (coming with a <sup></sup> tag)
			::* ]: 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.
			::] 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)

			== Etymology grammar ==
	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)

			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)
	: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)

			: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.
	==External links==
			::], one of whose symbols was the Moon and who was often regarded as the goddess of the Moon, was also called ]
	:There needs to be a serious discussion concerning the bloated "External links" section with two subsections that has grown to '''20 links'''. There needs to be some mass trimming or possibly links incorporated (if possible) into the article. On some articles, usually much lower classed, I simply delete all but three or sometimes move all but three to the talk page, for any future possible discussion, as section maintenance. The rationale:
			:] (]) 13:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
	:There are about 17 links (an astounding number) too many. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth.

	:The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
			:::I took a shot at straightening out that paragraph, based on the other Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 14:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
	*] states: {{tq\|Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.}}
			::::Much better, thanks. ] (]) 14:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
	*] states: {{tq\|There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.}}

	*]: {{tq\|Minimize the number of links}}. --
			== Not only one Natural satellite ==
	*]: {{tq\|'''Do not use {{tl\|cite web}}''' or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.}}

	**'''See''': ] for discussion. Also ].
			there's also Kordylewski cloud ] (]) 14:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	:External links '''This page in a nutshell''': {{tq\|External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.}}
	:Second paragraph, {{tq\|acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.}}
	:Note some
	:I generally give seven or more days (depends on when I can get back) for a discussion before performing trimming maintenance (or mass tree cutting) with the indication of approval being added by ].
	**'''Please note''':
	*]: {{tq\|'''Disputed links should be excluded by default''' unless and until there is a consensus to include them}}. Thanks in advance -- ] (]) 08:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
	:Please just say which external link you think should be removed first, and why. Bear in mind that some articles are different from others and, whereas I haven't examined the external links here, it stands to reason that there would be an unusually large number of high quality resources that would benefit readers. You are correct that cite web should be removed. ] (]) 09:11, 18 September 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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.

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Moon / Solar System Top‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.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 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.

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)

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.

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)

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)

Not only one Natural satellite

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

Categories: