Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Moon task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Articles to Add

I Think it would be good if you also added something here for amateur astronomers who have personal telescopes. One particular thing might be concerning optimal viewing times, filters to use and names of the more prominent features. I wouldn't mind doing this if it is accepted. Feel free to contact me on my talk page concerning this. CommanderSoloho 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[User:CommanderSoloho]

I think an article such as "Observing the Moon" would be useful. Feel free to start it! Lunokhod 20:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me as well. I'd be particularly interested in some commentary on the recent dramatic improvements in amateur astrophotography of the Moon. — RJH (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

hopefully that could include a bit about International Space Station lunar transits.. a google search for "ISS lunar transit" gives lots of interesting hits, like this one.. all done by amateur astronomers. Mlm42 10:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah everyone. Personally, I didn't think my idea would even take off. Thanks for all the interest. I am starting the article today, so if anyone who stargazes wants to help, feel free. It is under the title "Observing the Moon". Personally, I don't think I have quite the knowledge base for this, I've only done stuff with my telescope for about three years or so. If anyone wants to help me work this page, let me know either here or my talk page.CommanderSoloho 14:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[User|CommanderSoloho]

Hello.

I just wanted to let you know that there is a Guide available which mentions some of the ideas which can be used to keep a successful project going. A few of the comparatively easy ones are creation of a project banner which can be used on talk pages and of a userbox which members can add to their userpages. A few samples of these can be found at {{WPMoon}} and {{User WPMoon}}. Feel free to use them if you so desire. It also helps from a strictly internal perspective to have a members list on the project page, which, right now, this one doesn't have. I am also about to add this project to the Project Directory, so that people will be able to find it there. Lastly, I would like you to consider perhaps engaging in assessment of articles as per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Doing so gives you a clear idea as to the comparative current quality of articles in the scope of your project, and makes choosing futurre collaborations easier. It will also make it easier to select articles for inclusion in any future CD or other packages. Anyway, please feel free to contact either the WikiProject Council or me directly if you have any questions or want any help, and best of luck with the project! Badbilltucker 15:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment

Does anybody know how to include article assessment in the project banner? As an example, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Space_exploration/Assessment and {{WP Space exploration}}. This is beyond my competance at this point... Lunokhod 16:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot for how to use the bot that updates the lists, and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index for a list of all wikiprojects using article assessment. to make a banner, you can mostly copy it directly from another project's banner, changing all (there are a lot of hidden ones) the appropriate links. Mlm42 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I got everything set up with the exception of the optional "comments" tag. Lunokhod 19:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo galleries?

In cleaning up the page Moon, I removed a bunch of (good) gratuitous images. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a few links to "photo galleries", as a large portion of the people who come here probably care less about the text! For instance, under "exploration of the Moon" there could be a carefully selected subset of images from the manned Apollo and other unmanned missions. Under landscape we could add a galley of selected Lunar Orbiter photos of craters and features in the maria, etc. What do you think? Lunokhod 09:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's general practice to provide a link to the Commons page, for image galleries. Mlm42 10:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Importance" of craters, mountains, features, mare

I've tagged a number of lunar features as being "Mid" importance. The sole criteria is that they play some prominent role in lunar science or the exploration of the Moon. In my opinion, the rest of the untagged pages (and there are hundres!) should be considered "Low" importance. Hopefully, this will help people to focus on improving some of the more important craters and mare pages. Lunokhod 16:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd rate Aristarchus (crater) as important due to the interesting geological features. Also Copernicus (lunar crater) because it's probably a common look-up. Cases could perhaps be made for Plato, Schroedinger, Tycho and Tsiolkovsky as well. Both Mare Orientale and Mare Imbrium seem worthy of higher importance. Just my opinion, of course. — RJH (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think I tagged all the important mare, but the craters you mentioned should be given a higher than average importance. Lunokhod 22:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Both of the maria I mentioned are rated of mid-importance. — RJH (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Craters on the Moon, and Category:Moon

Should all the craters under Category:Craters on the Moon be also listed under Category:Moon? I bring this up because I added SPA to Category:Moon, but this was reverted. At a very minimum, I think that following should be listed under Moon, given their importance in lunar science:

• SPA
• Imrium
• Nectaris
• Eratosthenese
• Copernicus

Lunokhod 13:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No. There's 1450 of them and someone's going to have to go through them with AWB (or a bot) to do the recategorizations. Just tagging the little ones with {{moon-stub}} has taken me about 6 or so hours so far (and there's still 650 to go). As for tagging the talk pages, there are a number of bots, such as User:Kingbotk, which you can use. MER-C 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to comment here that tagging the lunar crater articles with stub tags seems close to ridiculous. Most of those pages have no additional information at this time. They are not going to be expanded until we can get some better geological spacecraft to take a closer look (and get better images). Is there a counter-argument to this? If so, I'd really like to see a suitable source for ultra-detailed crater information because, frankly, I haven't found one. In many cases wikipedia has the most extensive descriptions. So, basically, I'm strongly urging that those stubs removed from the crater pages. I've regularly stripped those out in the past, and I'm sorely tempted to do so now. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I long ago gave up on the whole concept of stub tagging myself, I think it'd be easier and make more sense to just create a {{non-stub}} template. :) Or you could do what I did; go to your custom CSS page (probably User:RJHall/monobook.css if you're using the default Monobook skin) and add the line "#stub {display: none;}". It doesn't get rid of the stub categories but you'll only see stub templates themselves when editing. Bryan 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved South Pole-Aitken Basin to Category:Geological features on the Moon as an interim compromise, since it does seem like the most significant of the group anyway, but there shouldn't be redundant categorization. Would creating a subcategory of "craters on the Moon" called something like "impact basins on the Moon" to hold the big guys be reasonable? I don't know whether there's an actual basis for distinguishing these features from other impact craters. Bryan 17:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that most of the impact basins are also maria. (E.g. mare orientalis.) So perhaps there needs to be a dual category for "mares" and basins? — RJH (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Geographical divisions for features

The category Category:Craters on the Moon has about 1500 articles in it and I'm thinking it might be useful to subcategorize based on the locations of the craters, much like how Category:Craters on Earth is. Anyone else think this might be a good idea? And if so, does anyone have suggestions on what regional divisions would be best? Earth has widely recognized continent and ocean boundaries but I don't know what the equivalent for the Moon would be. Bryan 03:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

One categorization could be just near side and far side. The other traditional categorization is mare and highlands, but this division isn't always so clear. Lunokhod 11:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Selenography mentions octants, which from the diagram at Selenographic coordinates look like they'd fit quite nicely underneath a nearside/farside division while allowing for even more specific subdivision. It's a pity terrae aren't mentioned much, I tried to find a map of them a while back without success. (update: I just found one. Yay! List of features on the Moon#Terra. Unfortunately it looks like only nearside got terra names, though.) Bryan 18:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to see this link. However, I'm not sure if this is a standard naming nomenclature. There are also "names" for small scale maps here, here, here, and here, but I believe that, again, these is only for the nearside. Also, I'm not sure how the naming convention scales with map scale. I'm not an observationalist, but in the scientific literature, I can say that it is very uncommon to see quandrant names associated with features. You might want to look at the Bussey and Spudis book (ref at Moon). They might have some naming procedure, and given that this is the most recent and global map that's been published in book form, it might be useful to follow their lead. Lunokhod 19:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A local library has that, but it's a bit out of my way so it'll be a while before I have a chance to dig it up. I'll see what it says. Bryan 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Full moon cycle proposed for deletion

Full moon cycle has been proposed for deletion. Please go to the appropriate page to leave your comments.Lunokhod 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I note that thus far there is no mention of calendrics in the WikiProject Moon. The moon has been very important for millennia in calendars, so I suggest that is an oversight. Should lunar calendrics be added to the project, I would suggest that the Full moon cycle article would be relevant. In fact, that is where the article had its origins. Victor Engel 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is relevant. The rationale for deletion is that the topic does not conform to wikipedia policy. In particular, it is being argued that this topic represents Original Research, which is forbidden. See Wikipedia:No_original_research. Lunokhod 07:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I was referring mainly to calendrics in general -- not the Full moon cycle article in particular, although I commented on that, too. I realize I posted in a section for Full moon cycle. Feel free to move my comment to a new section on calendrics if you think that more appropriate. Victor Engel 15:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No original research discussion at Village Pump

There is currently a debate about the high levels of original research in full moon cycle, new moon, full moon, and lunar phase that is being discussed at Village Pump. If you have an opinion on this, please let it be known there. Lunokhod 15:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"High levels of original research" is Lunakhod's characterization of the articles. The discussion at Village Pump is, in fact, an attempt to establish where the boundary of original research ought to be. Victor Engel 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, add IMHO! Lunokhod 18:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Equations: Original research and verifiability

I have started a policy discussion concerning how much an equation can be changed before it becomes original research on the talk page of WP:NOR. If this topic interests you, please let your opinion be known. Lunokhod 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Eclipse cycle: confusing, or not?

I recently put a "confusing" banner on two sections of eclipse cycle, but this has been challenged by someone who appears to be the person who wrote the sections. Would someone please be so kind as to weigh in with an objective third opinion? Also, I was considering placing the same confusing banner on the subsection "Saros series" of Saros cycle, so I'd appreciate it if someone could consult with this topic as well. Lunokhod 15:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Moon PR

Since the Moon article has achieved GA status, I went ahead and put it up for another peer review to see if anything else is needed for FA (in readiness for somebody actually taking it through FAC, that is.) Please comment. — RJH (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I'm going to be working on a few loose ends over the next week, but I see a few deficiencies preventing FA status: First, the ecplise section has to be expanded to discuss boht solar and lunar eclipses. Secondly, the sections "eclipse", "observation", "exploration", and "human understanding" have very few citations. Finally, as in Venus (planet), I think that we should give a short list (in paragraph form) of books and films where the Moon played a prominent role, such as 2001, and voyage sur la lune. I've also been trying to trim down the large number of "see alsos" and "external links", to those that are really useful (links like Google Moon are toys that keep popping up...). Any help would be appreciated. Most of my efforts so far have been on sections for which I actually have some understanding... Lunokhod 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Moon in art and literature" page gives a fairly extensive list already. I'm not sure where we'd draw the line on that sort of material. — RJH (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Planet Infoboxes TfD's

These include Template:Planet Infobox/Moon. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 11. Mike Peel 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Moon Categories

I just recategorized most of the lunar topics. The general idea was to get rid of all the topics with Category:Moon, and place these into appropriate subcategories. Things aren't perfect now, but I think that it is much more logical than before. Please feel free to make any changes you think are necessary. In particular, I was thinking of perhaps making a category Lunar geography, but I haven't gotten around to doing this yet. Lunokhod 20:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Lunar year with Lunar calendar

It has been proposed that Lunar year be merged with Lunar calendar. Please leave your comments on the talk page. Lunokhod 13:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Basin Groups article proposed for deletion.

I have proposed the Basin Groups article for deletion. Please leave your opinion at the appropriate page. Lunokhod 10:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Lunar crater stubs

In the hopes of doing something about the large size of the Category:Moon stubs, I've created {{Moon-crater-stub}} / Category:Lunar crater stubs, and am 'bot-populating it now (from those that are also in the corresponding permanent categories). However, it looks to me as if almost every {{Moon-stub}} is about a crater (they're just not all categorised as such), so ultimately this will just turn one large stub type, into another, with a teeny parent. Is there anything more useful that can be done to split the craters up further? By LPC Crater Type? By location? Alai 05:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, why are the crater stubs needed? Sorry but this seems almost daft to me, as if we're begging somebody to fill each crater page with useless drivel. Almost none of those pages are going to be significantly expanded until we get better lunar atlases. Why are sub-categories needed for the craters? Who is ever going to look up a crater by their LPC crater type? At best they could be split by near side/far side, but even that is dubious. What about craters in libration zones? Are they near side or far side?

I would argue strongly that the lunar crater category is fine the way it is right now. When I want to look up a particular crater I don't want to go looking through a bunch of sub-categories. I would look for them by name. So at best maybe sub-categories by initial would work. — RJH (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there was no rebutal, I'll just assume that there is no objection to removal of the stubs. — RJH (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the earlier discussion on either stub-tagged or categorisation, no intention to open old wounds. But these pages a) exist, and b) already have stub tags on them: no "begging" to add "useless drivel" is involved, at least on my part. It sounds like you're objecting to one or other of these, rather than to re-sorting them. If you want to delete or merge these articles on the basis of being unlikely to grow beyond being stubs, then I'd have not the slightest objection. However, if they remain as stubs, then they ought to be tagged as stubs, and the resultant (huge) stub category has to be "managed" -- if nothing else for the sake of the non-crater moon-stubs being swamped thereby. If further categorisation or sorting beyond that isn't worthwhile, then fair enough (though if the LPC types aren't topics of specialisation, or otherwise of interest to researchers, one wonders why they were coined in the first place). Also note that (permanent) sub-categorisation needn't exclude categorisation by one or more other means, they can be placed in both. (As distinct from the stub categories, which there's a general effort to keep within reasonable size bounds, these being for a distinct purpose.)

Just removing stub tags from admitted stubs wouldn't be very constructive (and it escapes me how that would follow from your first comment). As to where the boundary between "stub" and "short but reasonably complete article" actually lies, I leave that for you domain experts to determine, other than to note that if it's drawn so low as to lead non-wikiprojecteers to consistently conclude that it's the former, that's apt to simply result in endless "churning", if others conclude it's simply a stub, and hence is in need of being tagged as such, rather than thinking "permanent stub, so I won't tag it as such". In extreme cases, merger might be the better medium-term solution.

BTW, about half of the craters tagged with {{Moon-stub}} lacked even a Category:Craters on the Moon permcat when I initially looked at them, so someone might want to add that, at least, whether or not something more specific is also desirable. Alai 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I just visited the WP:WSS project, and after trying to organize Category:Moon, I see what the rationale is for doing this. However, in order for this to be useful, once a moon-crater-stub is added to a crater article, the moon-stub should also be removed. Right now there are too many crater stubs in the moon-stub category. Could someone take care of this with a bot (I don't know how to do this, and I don't want to do it by hand.)? Lunokhod 17:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Per WP:Stubs, "Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library. An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub." Based on this I don't believe that most (if not all) of the lunar crater articles qualify as stubs, due to the paucity of more detailed information. (This may change in the future following new space missions and such.) I think that an article that can not be further expanded based on the lack of availability of information should not be considered a stub. — RJH (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this is the follows: First, IF there is going to be a crater-stub, first remove the moon-stub from the article. The whole purpose of stub categorizing is defeated if this isn't done. Second, I don't think that crater-stub should be added to every single impact crater. In some instances, certain craters might indeed be stubs, such as South Pole-Aitken, or the craters near the poles. But as RJH mentions above, the vast majority of crater-stubs will never be expanded upon: there are just too many lunar craters, and not much is known about them besides there fundamental morphologic characteristics. So... I'm leaving towards getting rid of the crater-stub class as well. Lunokhod 20:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Lunokod: I've looked at everything in Category:Moon stubs, and everything in Category:Lunar crater stubs and I don't see any double-stubbing with {{Moon-stub}}. Indeed, all the populating I did of the Category:Lunar crater stubs was on precisely the basis of replacing {{Moon-stub}} with {{Moon-crater-stub}}. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, I really don't see what the difficulty is. (Nor is there going to be much point in elaborately retagging things if you're then going to ask for the tags to be removed, anyway.)

RJH: as you're surely aware, you've quoted only the second, "alternative" definition of what's a stub. If you systematically remove stub tags from articles which are so short that the qualify as stubs by the first definition (very short length), and don't in the second (not straightforward to expand), then you have the difficulties I've described above. I don't think "untagged permastubs" is a good way of organising information, so if you want to get rid of those numerous stub tags, I'd suggest looking at different ways to organise the information. Alai 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the their not being double stubs. The problem is that there are a large number (200 or so) of lunar crater articles that have a Moon-stub, and not the crater-stub. For consistency, all these Moon-stubs should be converted to crater-stubs. If you look at the Category:Moon stubs, you'll see what I'm talking about. Lunokhod 09:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to crater-stubs, to moon-crater-stubs (different stub tag, somewhat adding to the confusion in the above). But as I mentioned earlier, there are a large number of these that have no permanent "Lunar crater" category, and thus didn't get picked up by the 'bot. And as I just said, Nor is there going to be much point in elaborately retagging things if you're then going to ask for the tags to be removed, anyway." If people add appropriate permcats (as ought to happen anyway, sooner or later), and the tags do in fact remain, I can re-run the bot to pick them up. Alai 00:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging the crater articles on the basis of their length would not make much sense. Where possible true stub articles have been merged on the basis of geographic proximity. (See, for example, Lacus Felicitatis.) If an article already provides the available information on a topic with little possibility of expansion, then I'd consider that it has satisfied the initial condition of providing the available useful information. As for the "churning" issue, well up until this point I had considered it a manageable issue that only happened to a handful of crater pages. As for the definition of a stub; defining it strictly on the basis of length makes no sense. It has to be based on content. So the second definition appears the more appropriate in my mind. — RJH (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

New navigational footer

Here is my attempt at a new navigational footer. There was a complain concerning the image, and rightfully so, in my opinion. It's more detailed, but is still almost the same height as the previous version. Please feel free to make as many changes to the style as you want. I'm no graphic designer.... Lunokhod 20:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Lunar effect?

Does Lunar effect fall within the range of this project? (Currently someone is asking for it to be cleaned up.) Bubba73 (talk), 01:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Genesis Rock

I could be wrong, but i don't think that the image of the "genesis rock" found at Genesis Rock and Moon rock is in fact the aforementioned sample. Could someone look into this? It kind of looks like a basalt, as opposed to chunk of anorthosite. Surely, we could find a color photo of this rock instead. Lunokhod 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, the correct photo has been uploaded. Lunokhod 10:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

new article

Would members of this project take a look at Independent evidence for human Moon landings? Bubba73 (talk), 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Independent evidence for human Moon landings into Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations

Go to the talk page to leave your opinion. Lunokhod 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Article up for deletion: Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings

Please leave your comments on the appropriate page. Lunokhod 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Two similar articles

There are two similar articles to the one above (proposed for deletion).

• Examination of Apollo moon photos
• Apollo program missing tapes

Both are also spin-offs of Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, the first one more directly so. I think the first one serves the purpose of reducing the size of the main article, and a summary of it is in the main article. The second one needs some work. Bubba73 (talk), 03:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings into Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations

One more time.... Go to the talk page to leave your opinion. Lunokhod 09:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of Space related wikiprojects

I've been thinking about how the Mars and Moon wikiprojects will fit into the Solar System project and have come up with the following suggestions;

1. All discussions on these two talk pages should be redirected to the Solar System talk page in order to help achieve a critical mass.
2. The main Mars and Moon project pages should remain as is. These contain useful information related to these specialized subtopics.
3. The article assessments and project banners should remain as is for the Moon and Mars subprojects. These are useful for those who are interested in tracking health of these respective subdisiplines.
4. If the time comes that the talk page of Solar System becomes overloaded, we can spin off these topics back to the old Mars and Moon talk pages.

Let me know what you think. In about a week I'll make the necessary changes to the Moon talk page. (I am currently alerting the members of Martian Geography to the possibility of renaming this project to just Mars to increase its scope.) Lunokhod 22:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings into Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations

One more time.... Go to the talk page to leave your opinion. Lunokhod 09:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of Space related wikiprojects

I've been thinking about how the Mars and Moon wikiprojects will fit into the Solar System project and have come up with the following suggestions;

1. All discussions on these two talk pages should be redirected to the Solar System talk page in order to help achieve a critical mass.
2. The main Mars and Moon project pages should remain as is. These contain useful information related to these specialized subtopics.
3. The article assessments and project banners should remain as is for the Moon and Mars subprojects. These are useful for those who are interested in tracking health of these respective subdisiplines.
4. If the time comes that the talk page of Solar System becomes overloaded, we can spin off these topics back to the old Mars and Moon talk pages.

Let me know what you think. In about a week I'll make the necessary changes to the Moon talk page. (I am currently alerting the members of Martian Geography to the possibility of renaming this project to just Mars to increase its scope.) Lunokhod 22:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Future lunar missions into exploration of the Moon

Leave your comments here: talk:Exploration of the Moon. Lunokhod 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hollow Moon

Hollow moon This article amused me. It's about a pseudoscientific theory that the moon is actually a hollow ufo spaceship sent by aliens. It's seems to have been around somewhat undetected, only being updated by one user. I only found it becouse my mom insists that it's a fact and I wanted to see if wikipedia had anything on it. The article is a total mess, with no discernible categories and obviously favouring the hollow moon viewpoint. It's basically one long stream of conciousness ramble about an easily disproven "theory". I figured this would be the best place to report this otherwise isolated article. Personally I feel the theory would merit it's own little article, just like other crackpot theories like hollow earth or David Icke. apparently some book has been written about it so notability shouldn't be a problem.Zainker 20:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WPSS banner

I've been working on the banner {{WPSS}} for the Solar System wikiproject, and have been trying to incorporate the appropriate elements of the Moon banner at {{WPMoon}}. I believe i have the article assessments working for both.. so {{WPMoon|class=GA|importance=High}} will produce the same tags as {{WPSS|Moon=yes|class=GA|importance=High}}, as well as including the quality rating into the Solar system wikiproject assessments. (the 'importance' is still only relative to the Moon wikiproject). You may want to have a look and see if it's okay.. Mlm42 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This idea is being put on hold until it is decided whether we should merge all the Space-related banners into a {{WPSpace}} banner. Mlm42 16:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings → Apollo missions tracked by independent parties

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings → Apollo missions tracked by independent parties- proposed by user:ScienceApologist. 132.205.44.134 23:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CFD on Category:People with craters of the Moon named after them

User:RobertG has nominated Category:People with craters of the Moon named after them for conversion into the list List of people with craters of the Moon named after them. 132.205.44.5 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Think I found a trove of PD maps, worth putting on Commons?

I just stumbled across a collection of very detailed topographical maps of the Moon, at [1]. They are published by the Aeronautical Chart Information Center, United States Air Force, which (being a part of the US Federal government) suggests they're public domain. If that's the case and I were to dump these onto Commons, would they be useful? commons:Category:Maps of the Moon is pretty sparsely populated right now, but these are very big images that could be unwieldy to use in actual articles. Bryan Derksen 02:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, then on with the illustrations of articles on lunar selenography. 70.55.84.6 06:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A portal?

There is discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation#Portal:Moon on if a Portal:Moon should be created. Input from people involved with this WikiProject would be appreciated. — Pious7 19:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested. Shrewpelt 16:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: 3 March 2007 lunar eclipse and 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse

Are individual lunar eclipses notable enough that they should have individual Wikipedia articles?

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28 August 2007 lunar eclipse. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Peter G Werner 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Got some bandwidth?

Sub-10m/pixel old Apollo data is being digitized at http://apollo.sese.asu.edu. There's only five images at this time, but more will gradually be posted. Does anyone feel like downloading some 200MB PNGs? MER-C 11:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Chang'e 1

The lunar orbiter Chang'e 1 was launched today, so any help y'all feel like providing to the article would be useful! Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mare

Was just reading the article on the Mare Imbrium. Seems a rather glaring error to state that the mare formed as a result of the impact. There is an obvious spatial relationship between the impact basins and the mare (produced by volcanic flows), but this has to do with the low elevation of the basins rather than the impact itself producing volcanism. Should fix that.

 * The Geology of the Terrestrial Planets, NASA SP-469 (1984), Chapter 6 (Moon), pages 163-177 (maria).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.139.123 (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 

Surface features of celestial bodies

categories of Surface features of celestial bodies has been nominated to rename from cat:X on Y to cat:X of Y. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 9#Surface features of celestial bodiesSurface features of celestial bodies 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Subcategorizing craters based on lunar quadrangles

The category Category:Craters on the Moon has nearly 2000 articles in it, a rather unweildy number to browse through. For a long time now I've been on the lookout for some universally recognized means of dividing up the Moon's surface into subregions so that this category could be split up and I believe I've finally found one. The USGS has divided the Moon into 30 quadrangles for the purpose of producing 1:2,500,000 maps; their project page is at [2] and I've created an article at List of quadrangles on the Moon. Mars has a similar layout of quadrangles, so as a test case I created Template:Mars quadrangle and modified Template:MarsGeo-Crater so that it automatically categorized craters on Mars into the subcategories of Category:Surface features of Mars by quadrangle. I'm pleased to announce that the system appears to be working perfectly and as of this writing I've received no death threats yet from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mars.

I designed it with Template:Lunar crater data specifically in mind, so I created the analogous Template:Lunar quadrangle mostly by copying and pasting proven template code. I'm now ready to do the same to the lunar crater articles. However, I figured I should give a heads-up here to see if there were any objections or suggestions before I went ahead. There is one difference in particular; as of this writing only one Lunar quadrangle has a name yet, so I was going to use the quadrangle numbers instead. I've emailed the principle investigator on the mapping project (Dr. Lisa Gaddis) and she told me that the project was likely going to get going on more quadrangles in 2008, so hopefully more names will be turning up soon (she actually asked me for suggestions. I demurred since I'm no selenologist, but if anyone here wants to get involved in that it'd be an interesting case :). In the meantime, here's the pattern I was planning on using for the categories: Category:LQ01 quadrangle, Category:LQ02 quadrangle, and so forth. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There, I've thrown the switch. See Category:Geological features on the Moon by quadrangle. If this meets with general approval I'll eventually create a navigational table like I did with Category:Surface features of Mars by quadrangle. Bryan Derksen (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

International Year of Astronomy 2009

2009 has been proclaimed as the International Year of Astronomy. It would be great to tie in with this, both to help with the aims of the international year and to spur extra improvements to Wikipedia's coverage of astronomy. I've started a thread about this over at WikiProject Astronomy; please have a look and join in with the conversation. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Moon

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems okay, although Surveyor Program might be a logical addition, and it would be nice to see a few more prominent lunar features such as Mare Orientale, Mare Imbrium, Copernicus (crater), Aristarchus (crater) and Tycho (crater). To me it's odd that there are separate articles for Lunar phase, Full Moon and New Moon.—RJH (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Response request

I posted a concern on the Moon article here. - RoyBoy 09:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

May I destroy?

May I make a redirect page of the article Planetary Database System? The reason is here: Talk:Planetary Database System. Said: Rursus (☻) 16:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dates and Microformats for lists of Eclipses

Please note my proposal for making a table-row template for lists of solar eclipses, so that they emit hCard microformats. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:26, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates template

The template {{Moon}} was created. Now only links to Google Moon but it could be used for creating a database and a maps system similar to WikiMiniAtlas one. Telescopi (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Article suggestion: Lunar lava tubes

I'd like to suggest an article on the topic of lunar lava tubes that may be interesting to develop. There is a fair amount of scholarly information available on the web, both in regards to the lunar geology of the tubes and their implications for habitation and archival sites. It could perhaps be merged with rilles. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Moon images categories up for deletion

Category:Images of moons and Category:Lunar images (images of The Moon) have been nominated for deletion at WP:CFD on May 23. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lunar ice

Hi, part of the article (last part of "Evidence for lunar ice" section) says that Chang'e 1 will take some detailed pictures and help to find ice. The Chang'e 1 article now says that the program was extended for a year which must have ended in March (that it was purposely crashed on the lunar surface in March). Can anyone add the conclusions about the ice yet? (it doesn't appear on Chang'e 1 or the Chang'e 1 webpage) ~ R.T.G 13:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any news stories about Chang'e 1 finding evidence of lunar ice yet. It is possible they are still analyzing the data.—RJH (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Hi, obviously posts on this page are becoming old and dusty. If you need help with an article or want to check some facts about the moon, please go to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science where they like to answer questions and give facts about the moon. ~~ R.T.G 09:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Expert opinion needed

Expert opinions are needed concerning edits made today at Examination of Apollo Moon photographs. Bubba73 (talk), 18:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-visible portion of the Moon: 50%?

Selenographic coordinates says: "Anything past 90°E or 90°W is on the "unseen" side of the moon."

However, Moon#Two_sides_of_the_Moon says: "Small variations (libration) in the angle from which the Moon is seen allow about 59% of its surface to be seen from the Earth (but only half at any instant)."

The animated graphic in Libration ( Lunation animation April 2007.gif ) seems to show that more than 50% of the Moon's surface is visible over the course of a month in both the north-south and east-west directions -- in other words that slightly more than 90°E or 90°W are visible from Earth at one time or another.

Can this please be corrected / clarified / reconciled in the text of these articles? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Bubba73 (talk), 19:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lunar images

Category:Lunar images has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Chandrayaan-1 lost; article could use cleanup

Chandrayaan-1 has been in the news (radio contact lost, mission declared over). Our article will probably be getting hits; it could use some copyediting and wikifying. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial geographic coordinate templates

{{Moon}} and {{Coor Mars}} have been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 16

76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

moon landing page split

I have added tags to the Moon Landing page suggesting that the Fictional Moon Landing section be split into its own article. I would appreciate any comments or help. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

reassessment of importance

recent discovery of substantial amounts of water in Cabeus crater suggest re-assessment of several articles' importance ratings. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Current moon Formating & Template:Current Moon

{{Current Moon}} and {{Current moon Formating}} have been nominated for deletion. These could be made into something useful, but are not now useful. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Moon science

FYI, Moon science has been nominated for deletion via AfD.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Moon articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Moon articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Reorganisation of space WikiProjects

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation regarding the future of WikiProject Space and its child projects. The discussion is aimed at defining the roles of projects, and improving the activity and coordination of the projects. The input of members of this project is requested as it is one which may be affected by the issue. --GW… 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Space WikiProject is now abolished. JJ98 (Talk) 04:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

New stub types

Hi all - just a heads-up that two new stub types relating to your project have just been created:

• {{Solar-eclipse-stub}} / Category:Solar eclipse stubs and
• {{Lunar-eclipse-stub}} / Category:Lunar eclipse stubs

The first of these should greatly reduce the nmber of stubs loose in the main Category:Astronomy stubs and will be a subcategory of it - the second will be a subcategory of the existing Category:Moon stubs. Any help youn can give in moving articles over to the new stub types will be greatly appreciated, though much of it will be done by WP:WikiProject Stub sorting. If you've got any comments or questions, please drop a note at WT:WSS. Thanks - and I hope the new stub types are useful to you! Grutness...wha? 02:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moon landing

This redirect is up for discussion. Please see WP:RFD#Wikipedia:Moon landing. Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 19:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

New lunar swirls Wikipedia article in need of review

Hello fellow lunatics,

A new Wikipedia article on lunar swirls needs some feedback to move up its status. Anyone willing to help?

Thank you, Dr. Lunatic (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Project A119 undergoing A-Class review

An article belonging to Wikipedia:WikiProject Moon, Project A119, is currently undergoing an A-Class review as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Any comments or pointers which you may wish to add would be greatly beneficial to the process. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 14:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Moon

{{portal|Moon}} Portal:Moon is up for peer review. Please comment here. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Solar eclipse

I have nominated Solar eclipse for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Historical tide times anyone...?

Hi, does anyone have any inkling how to find tide times for Cape Agulhas, South Africa, on 9 March 1766...? No worries if not, but maybe you could point me to someone who does? Thanks. :o) Nortonius (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

NVM – I think this has been pretty much wrapped up here; by all means improve upon that if you feel so inclined, but it'll soon become stale, you'll understand what I mean if you read that discussion. Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Apollo 11 or Apollo XI?

Please see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Apollo_11_or_Apollo_XI.3F and the discussion linked to there. Taylor Strand (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Apollo program

I have nominated Apollo program for a GA review. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

image:Craters of the Far Side of the Moon.jpg

File:Craters of the Far Side of the Moon.jpg has been nominated for immediate deletion as unsourced -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates of a Lava Tube

Here I leave the coordinates of the lava tube marius mountains selene discovered by the JAXA mission in 2008 can check them in google earth (moon)
14 ° 4'20 .83 "N 56 ° 44'57 .49" O
186.2.136.99 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Apollo 16 rover stills from video

The copyright status of some Apollo 16 images is up for discussion at WP:NFCR. The images are:

• File:Ap16 rover3.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Ap16 rover2.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Ap16 rover1.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fauth.jpg

image:Fauth.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Lunar eclipse

{{Infobox Lunar eclipse}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Solar eclipse2

{{Infobox Solar eclipse2}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Apollo Eleven"

The usage of Apollo Eleven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Apollo Eleven -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Lunar coords and quad cat}}

Template:Lunar coords and quad cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for merger. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Lunar crater references}}

Template:Lunar crater references (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Lunar coords and quad cat}}

Template:Lunar coords and quad cat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for merger. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Thalassoid"

FYI, there's a notice about Thalassoid at WT:AST -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Lunar landings hoax

Hi there, I would like to add a premise under the United States Mission paragraph stating that there is not enough contrasted references to prove this landings were real (as there is only one source) and that there is a growing number of experts entertaining the possibility that this missions were scientifically impossible. Van Allen belt radiation, impossible photography, background inconsistency, lack of stars, extreme temperatures and pressures, lack of technical information on equipment (gamma and xray protection suits?), no crater from the lunar module 10000lb engine thrust. It is unfair that this article is serving to keep people dreaming and does not serve the scientific community. Thanks Rafael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solmarfil (talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of fake images in lunar sample articles.

It has been raised on Commons that a number of digitally manipulated pictures are in use on pages regarding 'lunar sample displays'. I have nominated them for deletion on Commons, but there usage should be discussed on Wiki as well. The images are created from File:Moon 4.jpg and File:Moon 3.jpg and have the titles of the states altered, misrepresenting them as plaques for displays of which they are not. The images are listed at Commons here, and are in the following articles:

• Colorado lunar sample displays
• Arkansas lunar sample displays
• West Virginia lunar sample displays
• Oregon lunar sample displays
• Alaska lunar sample displays
• New Mexico lunar sample displays
• Delaware lunar sample displays
• New York lunar sample displays
• North Carolina lunar sample displays

The use of these images seems inappropriate, are there any objections to replacing them with the unaltered original and a caption which states: "Plaques on the California Apollo 11 lunar sample display, similar to the one in FOO"? This would relay the same message, but without the use of fake images. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd support replacing them per your suggestion. They're obviously altered and simply confusing for readers. Sam Walton (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Support, there is no reason why terribly doctored images should be used when the original is there. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, these should be removed from the articles immediately. I have also added to the deletion discussion on Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the input. The files have now been deleted and a replacement image placed on the affected pages. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Spherical Geometry !

This article also seems interesting to those curious about the use of astrological reading of human (and animal) character.Would it be possible to simplify this geometric description to render it more easy for the layman to understand (comprehend) ?! ...am interested in modern astronomy...have not the time for it ?  :-) Thank you very much.

14.97.47.88 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Lunar zenith line?

A large number of recent edits (Special:Contributions/Terriffic_Dunker_Guy) are adding links to lunar zenith line (and also forms at Lunar Zenith Line). I'm no selenologist, but this isn't a term I recognise, or can easily find a definition for.

Should we have this link? If so, we need a stub article there, just to give the definition. Also we shouldn't have the capitalised forms, per usual MOS rules.

@Terriffic Dunker Guy: Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

He is just referring to 0 degrees longitude on the moon. There is no need for a page, and frankly there is no need to make up this term when the infobox for the crater tells you the longitude. I'm going to revert these edits.

Jstuby (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A request for the creation of an article titled the "Lunar equator"

A request should be made, a possible proposal of an article titled the lunar equator may be put.

As with the article on the Earth's equator which displays the tables of places and oceans that are crossed by the equator. For the moon, it should display some of the info as well as table of craters, mountains and other selenographic features on that page. Info will be added on the planned article similar to the one on the Earth's equator including views of the Earth up to about 59% of the area in that part. Also references and geowiki links will be put, on the geowiki part, on each crater, the location by latitude that is located on that equator, the same as to geo features on the Earth.

Other than this proposed article, the request for the creation of the lunar 90 east and west has been removed. Also a possible request for the creation of the articles Lunar 45th parallel north and south may be made. As that to 45 N and S on Earth, it will also contain info and table for the lunar 45 N and S alongside reference. Terriffic Dunker Guy (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Will you start this as a section of Selenography? Jim.henderson (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Deep Space Gateway listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Deep Space Gateway to be moved to Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WIKIPEDIA, ORBITS THE EARTH

FOR THIS STATEMENT BY WIKIPEDIA, ORBITS THE EARTH YOU HAVE PROOF IN THAT TESTIMONY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3DC3:F400:E862:2B11:CB9E:77DD (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer to be moved to LADEE. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Eugene Cernan listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Eugene Cernan to be moved to Gene Cernan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

SpaceX lunar tourism mission listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for SpaceX lunar tourism mission to be moved to dearMoon Project. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

DearMoon Project listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for DearMoon Project to be moved to dearMoon. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

wiki moon_change-to infomation _Google Chromeand/orGoogle Chrome/moon names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.153.58.189 (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Examination of Apollo Moon photographs for deletion (discussion here)

Hey so an article in your project (Examination of Apollo Moon photographs) (and one I believe relevant to your interests) has been nominated for AfD by yours truly. Article has had issues related to POV, lack of reliable sources, use of original research, and a lack of wikipedia-like style for at least a decade. These issues have not been fixed. All useful and wikipedia-relevant content has already been merged into Moon landing conspiracy theories. The fact that this article exists at all on wikipedia reduces the overall reputation of the wiki. All relevant photographs already exist on the other page, all relevant citations already exist there, etc. So if you'd like to contribute to that discussion, go ahead and check out --->Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination). Thanks!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

BFR (rocket) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for BFR (rocket) to be moved to Starship (rocket). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

BFR (rocket) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for BFR (rocket) to be moved to Starship-Super Heavy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Lunar Roving Vehicle listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lunar Roving Vehicle to be moved to Lunar roving vehicle. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Lunar phase listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lunar phase to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Luna-Glob listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Luna-Glob to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

List of artificial objects on the Moon listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of artificial objects on the Moon to be moved to List of spacecraft on the Moon. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Blue Origin Blue Moon listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Blue Origin Blue Moon to be moved to Blue Moon (spacecraft). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proposal of an article

Should I have an article about Apollo 11 50th Anniversary?

—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 13:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Gender neutral language renaming discussion

Hi all — I have proposed renaming the category Category:Manned missions to the Moon to Category:Crewed missions to the moon. You are welcome to comment on the proposal at its listing here. - Sdkb (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Starship (rocket and spacecraft) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Starship (rocket and spacecraft) to be moved to Starship (spacecraft). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Nomination of Portal:Moon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Moon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Moon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Starship (rocket and spacecraft) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Starship (rocket and spacecraft) to be moved to SpaceX Starship. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Propose re-assessment of article importances

Of the 10 articles currently listed as Start-class, Top-importance within WikiProject Moon, 6 of them are specific solar eclipses. An additional Top-importance rated specific solar eclipse article is rated C-class. Articles about specific solar eclipses do not seem to meet the criteria for Top-importance to WikiProject Moon. Indeed they are rated as Low- to Mid-importance in WikiProjects Astronomy and Solar System. I propose downgrading them all to at most Mid-importance.

Similarly, given that Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station is rated only at Mid-importance by WikiProject Spaceflight I don't see how it justifies Top-importance at WikiProject Moon. I propose downgrading it to Mid.

On the other hand the stub Lunar magma ocean page does not yet have an importance rating, while the Origin of the Moon page, a level 5 vital article, somehow isn't even included in WikiProject Moon (even though Giant-Impact Hypothesis and Theia (planet) are). Origin of the Moon should be included in the project at Top-importance, while Lunar Magma Ocean should be Mid- or High-importance. Physdragon (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I will start working on the Lunar magma ocean page.Viranga13 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Lunar Orbital Platform – Gateway listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lunar Orbital Platform – Gateway to be moved to Gateway (space station). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

BFR (rocket) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for BFR (rocket) to be moved to SpaceX Starship. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Stolen and missing Moon rocks listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Stolen and missing Moon rocks to be moved to Stolen and missing moon rocks. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins (United States) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins (United States) to be moved to Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 09:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Lunar Gateway listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lunar Gateway to be moved to Gateway (space station). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System § Converting WikiProject Moon to a task force of this project

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System § Converting WikiProject Moon to a task force of this project. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Volcanism on the Moon

Just thought I would share this here since it is a recently created article that covers a significant topic of the Moon's history. Volcanoguy 04:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)