Talk:Moon

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

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 60 days

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

	Moon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 28, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 8, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 15, 2006 Featured topic candidate Promoted January 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed January 14, 2007 Peer review Reviewed April 30, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted May 18, 2010 Featured article review Kept June 13, 2021 Featured topic removal candidate Demoted A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 19, 2011. Current status: Featured article

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]