Talk:Moon

Mass of the Moon needs to be fixed

5.972168e24 kg (mass of the Earth from the Wikipedia 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 Elert (talk) 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 7.342 × 10²² is indeed just slightly wrong, and was first (I presume accidentally, as a typo) introduced in this 2015 edit. Remsense 诉 18:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The value of 7.346 is taken from the NASA source. You are right that this is inconsistent with the IAU's recommendation, so maybe we should give both values? Renerpho (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think giving two figures would be needless clutter, and would imply imprecision in measurement that we're not sure is the case. Barring that, I'm not sure what the best choice would be, and would appreciate more perspectives from those with insight into the matter. Remsense ‥ 论 23:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: You're right, the Gravitational Constant is known to 5 significant figures, so the actual uncertainty is about an order of magnitude smaller than the difference between the two masses would suggest. Renerpho (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

External links

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:

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.

• ELpoints #3) states: 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.
• LINKFARM states: 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 Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
  • See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Solar System task force#External links for discussion. Also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject External links#Mass links.

External links This page in a nutshell: 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, 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 silence and consensus.

• • Please note:
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. Thanks in advance -- Otr500 (talk) 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. Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Reply: Greetings (I'll play seconds), I have not examined the links either. I have been performing "External links" maintenance for a fairly long time. I rarely get serious pushback, pretty much close to never giving allowances for anything missed. The reason for the above discussion is to see if involved editors agree there are too many links, and if so, what should be done.

Some notes:

• 1)-There are people that have far (like spaceship far) more knowledge than I do and I am not (that I remember) a contributor, and it would take me a very long time, if even at all, to examine each link looking for inclusion.
• 2)- Any links that are left after some form of discussion and consensus, should follow policies and guidelines.
• 3)- Twenty links is surely considered "excessive", especially with the multitude of reasoning listed above, and normal practices would seem to indicate if 10 were removed there is a good argument that there would still be far too many, however, that is the purpose of a discussion and consensus.
• 4)- Often there are editors that just don't care or "pay attention" to the "External links" section,
• 5)- Links that violate WP:ELCITE might be considered one of those consensus could find that is truly beneficial so should remain.

I am just performing maintenance, and under the "suggestion" of WP:ELBURDEN, that removal of contested links should not be subjected to BRD. A more simple discussion would be more beneficial considering the article is a featured article, is under four projects and considered "Top‑importance". I do not want to jeopardize this. I will seek someone with more experience in this field and see if there could be a minimally invasive solution. Thanks though, -- Otr500 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the hard limit of three external links, but Otr500 is right that this article has too many ELs. The bigger problem is that most of the links are nearly 20 years old, and have lost much of their original appeal. Here's a summary of what I'd do (I went ahead and removed the links I deemed dispendable):

Remove: I have removed the two below from the "Observation tools" subsection, because they are unusable. While an archived version exists, the original URL (needed to use the tool) is dead:

• "NASA's SKYCAL – Sky Events Calendar". NASA. Archived from the original on August 20, 2007. Retrieved August 27, 2007.
• "HMNAO's Moon Watch". 2005. Archived from the original on February 4, 2009. Retrieved May 24, 2009. See when the next new crescent moon is visible for any location.

Remove: With only one item left under "Observation tools", I have moved that item up in the list and removed the now empty subsection.

Remove: I have also removed one of the videos, because it is purely artistic, serving no apparent purpose:

• Video (04:47) – The Moon in 3D (NASA, July 2018) on YouTube

Keep: There is another video -- a presentation, with commentary, of LRO results about the Moon -- that actually seems useful to me. I would keep that one.

• Video (04:56) – The Moon in 4K (NASA, April 2018) on YouTube

Remove: I have removed the two links below, because both the YouTube playlist and the Flickr album no longer exist:

• Albums of images and high-resolution overflight videos by Seán Doran, based on LROC data, on Flickr and YouTube

Keep: I have replaced the following link by one to the actual image (rather than an announcement of it).[1] I find this link useful and would propose to keep it:

• Large image of the Moon's north pole area. Archived August 23, 2016, at the Wayback Machine.

Remove: The original URL for the link below no longer works, and the archived version doesn't have the same functionality. Whether the original would have been useful is debatable (I would lead no), but this certainly isn't, so I've removed it:

• Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) Kaguya (Selene) images

Remove: The situation is similar for this link, which I have removed as well:

• "Clementine Lunar Image Browser". U.S. Navy. October 15, 2003. Archived from the original on April 7, 2007. Retrieved April 12, 2007.

Look for alternative: The link below may have been useful before the URL went dead. We could use an alternative:

• Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature (USGS). List of feature names.

Remove: I have removed the link below, because we had two ELs in the list that led to the same place (whoever added this didn't bother to check what was already there):

• "Google Moon". 2007. Retrieved April 12, 2007.

If anyone objects, and believes any of these definitely have to be in the article for some reason, please feel free to explain why, and then add them back.

I don't have a firm opinion (yet) about the links I haven't mentioned. Some of them appear useful, but I'd have to think about it some more.

To be honest though, I'd much rather have links that don't lead to results from the early 2000s, where a newer alternative is available. We can do better than this. Renerpho (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Renerpho. BTW- I don't have a "hard limit of three external links". If I get no response on an article with extreme excessive links I pick a number like three or four. This section has become a dumping ground in a lot of cases. I have been working in List of minor planets: 2001–3000 and the same 17, 18, and up to 23 links are used on every, or almost every, article. My second bulleted paragraph above states: "...everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth". In fact I was, and am, glad for your help. I do not have a problem with an occasional deviation from the "three, or four with consensus", to five with valid reasoning. On Halley's Comet I was elated that I could agree that five links was a good compromise. I stated there: "I do not have a problem with an occasional deviation from the "three, or four with consensus", to five with valid reasoning." The old WP:IAR is certainly dependent on consensus, so if a majority agrees on seven, then seven it is. I have run across articles with over 40 "External links" in up to five subsection. Thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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 ^{[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)

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 Wikipedia articles. Special-T (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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