Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21f1ede1fb324d3

Jump to content

Talk:Moon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMoon 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 28, 2007.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 8, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 15, 2006Featured topic candidatePromoted
January 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 30, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
May 18, 2010Featured article reviewKept
June 13, 2021Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
In the news 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

Edit request: Add sourced information to magnetic field section.

[edit]
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I would like to add more detail to the “Magnetic field” section.

Please change the following from :

"The Moon does not have a global dipolar magnetic field and only has crustal magnetization likely acquired early in its history when a dynamo was still operating. Early in its history, 4 billion years ago, its magnetic field strength was likely close to that of Earth today. This early dynamo field apparently expired by about one billion years ago, after the lunar core had crystallized."

to: "The Moon does not currently have a global dipolar magnetic field and only has crustal magnetization. The magnetic field history of the Moon is controversial; there is not currently consensus on the past intensity and timing of the Moon's paleomagnetic field. Many paleomagnetic measurements of lunar samples brought from the Apollo missions have been conducted. Some interpretations of these measurements indicate that the Moon’s paleomagnetic field can be characterized by two epochs. The first being an early, short, and relatively strong period from 4.25 to 3.58 billion years ago, reaching intensities around 100 μT, close to that of Earth’s today. [1] [2][3] It is difficult for a single mechanism to generate this specific dynamo history.” [4]


New editor, any critical or helpful feedback very welcome. Would like to add more if this is approved. Samagii (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Not done. It is better if you provide inline citations for the addition provided. I saw many lines are not supporting as per citations. Please check those and reply. I am not submitting as answered, so that if any other editor can see this, may solve this better. Thank you. Regards, VerdictByLogic - Let's Discuss 06:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feedback: A few phrasing tweaks needed, but you have a good foundation, and your references look well-chosen (geophysics isn't really my area of expertise). Adding inline citations, particularly with in-text locations (e.g. page numbers, section/heading names), and/or using the quote parameter of the {{cite journal}} template would help a lot with verification. Remember that Wikipedia is aimed at a general audience.
Symbols used:
  • [*] citation needed
  • [†] this phrasing could make even the most uncontroversial statement sound like wild speculation; does a great job of undermining its own credibility
  • [^] "some interpretations"—which ones? It might be better to just say "The measurements indicate"
  • [§] insert description of second epoch here
−
The Moon does not currently have a global dipolar magnetic field and only has crustal magnetization. The magnetic field history of the Moon is controversial; there is not currently consensus on the past intensity and timing of the Moon's paleomagnetic field. Many paleomagnetic measurements of lunar samples brought from the Apollo missions have been conducted. Some interpretations of these measurements indicate that the Moon’s paleomagnetic field can be characterized by two epochs. The first being an early, short, and relatively strong period from 4.25 to 3.58 billion years ago, reaching intensities around 100 μT, close to that of Earth’s today. It is difficult for a single mechanism to generate this specific dynamo history.
+
The Moon does not currently have a global dipolar magnetic field;[*] it only has crustal magnetization.[*] The magnetic field history of the Moon is controversial,[*] and there is still no consensus on the past intensity and timing of the Moon's paleomagnetic field.[*] Many paleomagnetic measurements have been taken from lunar samples collected during the Apollo missions. Some[†] interpretations[^] of these measurements indicate[†] that the Moon’s paleomagnetic field can[†] be characterized by two epochs.[*] In the first epoch (4.25 billion to 3.58 billion years ago), magnetic field intensities reached around 100 microteslas (1 Gauss), close to that of Earth’s today. [§] It is unlikely that a single mechanism generated this specific dynamo history without external influence.[*]
―Tosca-the-engineer (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much for the very helpful feedback. Will keep all in mind for future edits too! This is what I changed it to
The Moon does not currently have a global dipolar magnetic field; [5] it only has crustal magnetization. [6] The magnetic field history of the Moon is controversial, [7] and there is still no consensus on the past intensity and timing of the Moons paleomagnetic field. [8] [9] Many paleomagnetic measurements have been taken from lunar samples collected during the Apollo missions. These measurements indicate that the Moon's paleomagnetic field experienced two epochs with distinct characteristics. [10] In the first epoch (4.25 billion to 3.58 billion years ago), magnetic field intensities reached around 100 microteslas (1 Gauss), close to that of Earth's today. [11] The second epoch was much longer, (3.58 billion to 1 billion years ago), yet much weaker, with strengths only reaching 5-7 microteslas. [9][10] It is unlikely that a single convection mechanism, thermal or compositional, generated this specific dynamo history without external influence. [9][12] Samagii (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think this content is good enough to be added (though please remove spaces between periods and the citation ref).
A structural issue I see is that the reader can't make out what the controversy is about. According to the Nichols source, the controversy concerns the 3.5-3.8 Gya period and concerns a mix of strong and weak or absent field measurements. But text here makes it seem as if the controversy concerns "a mechanism" and "external influence". I would reorder the content once it is added to the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ↑ Mighani, S., Wang, H., Shuster, D. L., Borlina, C. S., Nichols, C. I. O., Weiss, B. P. (1 January 2020). "The end of the lunar dynamo". Science Advances. 6 (1). American Association for the Advancement of Science: eaax0883. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax0883.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  2. ↑ Cai, S., Qi, K., Yang, S., Fang, J., Shi, P., Shen, Z., Zhang, M., Qin, H., Zhang, C., Li, X., Chen, F., Chen, Y., Li, J., He, H., Deng, C., Li, C., Pan, Y., Zhu, R. (19 December 2024). "A reinforced lunar dynamo recorded by Chang'e-6 farside basalt". Nature. 643 (8071). Springer Nature: 361–365. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08526-2.
  3. ↑ Tikoo, S. M., Weiss, B. P., Shuster, D. L., Suavet, C., Wang, H., Grove, T. L. (4 August 2017). "A two-billion-year history for the lunar dynamo". Science Advances. 3 (8). American Association for the Advancement of Science: e1700207. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700207.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  4. ↑ Evans, A. J., Tikoo, S. M., Andrews‐Hanna, J. C. (4 January 2018). "The Case Against an Early Lunar Dynamo Powered by Core Convection". Geophysical Research Letters. 45 (1). Amer Geophysical Union: 98–107. doi:10.1002/2017gl075441.
  5. ↑ Dyal, Palmer; Parkin, Curtis W.; Daily, William D. (1974). "Magnetism and the interior of the Moon". Reviews of Geophysics. 12 (4): 568–591. doi:10.1029/RG012i004p00568. ISSN 8755-1209. There is a marked asymmetry betweenthe near side and the far side. The far side field is generally stronger and more structured than the nearside field......It seems to the authors that the locally active mechanisms are preferable over the global mechanisms because of the very low upper limit on the permanent global magnetic dipolemoment and the apparently random nature of the local fields on the scale of tens of kilometers.
  6. ↑ Richmond, N. C.; Hood, L. L. (2008). "A preliminary global map of the vector lunar crustal magnetic field based on Lunar Prospector magnetometer data". Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets. 113 (E2). doi:10.1029/2007JE002933. ISSN 0148-0227. Using the 329 optimal passes, global maps of the lunar crustal magnetic field are constructed at 30 and 40 km.
  7. ↑ Nichols, Claire I. O.; Wade, Jon; Stephenson, Simon N. (2026-02-26). "An intermittent dynamo linked to high-titanium volcanism on the Moon". Nature Geoscience. 19 (4). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 425–431. doi:10.1038/s41561-026-01929-y. ISSN 1752-0894. The history of the lunar magnetic field is a longstanding controversy.
  8. ↑ Tarduno, John A.; Cottrell, Rory D.; Lawrence, Kristin; Bono, Richard K.; Huang, Wentao; Johnson, Catherine L.; Blackman, Eric G.; Smirnov, Aleksey V.; Nakajima, Miki; Neal, Clive R.; Zhou, Tinghong; Ibanez-Mejia, Mauricio; Oda, Hirokuni; Crummins, Ben (2021-08-06). "Absence of a long-lived lunar paleomagnetosphere". Science Advances. 7 (32). doi:10.1126/sciadv.abi7647. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 8336955. PMID 34348904. Together, these data indicate that the Moon did not have a long-lived core dynamo.
  9. 1 2 3 Tikoo, Sonia M.; Weiss, Benjamin P.; Shuster, David L.; Suavet, Clément; Wang, Huapei; Grove, Timothy L. (2017-08-04). "A two-billion-year history for the lunar dynamo". Science Advances. 3 (8). doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700207. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 5550224. PMID 28808679. A central conundrum is that the lunar dynamo was apparently intense and long-lived..No single dynamo mechanism proposed thus far can explain the strong fields inferred for the period before 3.56 Ga while also allowing the dynamo to persist in such a weakened state beyond ~2.5 Ga. Therefore, our results suggest that the dynamo was powered by at least two distinct mechanisms operating during early and late lunar history.
  10. 1 2 Mighani, Saied; Wang, Huapei; Shuster, David L.; Borlina, Cauȇ S.; Nichols, Claire I. O.; Weiss, Benjamin P. (2020-01-03). "The end of the lunar dynamo". Science Advances. 6 (1). doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax0883. ISSN 2375-2548. PMC 6938704. PMID 31911941. the Moon once generated a core dynamo with surface field intensities of several tens of microtesla (comparable to that of Earth today) during the period 4.25 to 3.56 billion years (Ga) ago. Following this high-field epoch, the field declined by at least an order of magnitude by 3.2 Ga ago
  11. ↑ Weiss, Benjamin P.; Tikoo, Sonia M. (2014-12-05). "The lunar dynamo". Science. 346 (6214). doi:10.1126/science.1246753. ISSN 0036-8075. analyses of hundreds of samples seemed to indicate the existence of ancient magnetic fields with intensities ranging from 0.1 to 120 μT
  12. ↑ Dwyer, C. A.; Stevenson, D. J.; Nimmo, F. (2011). "A long-lived lunar dynamo driven by continuous mechanical stirring". Nature. 479 (7372). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 212–214. doi:10.1038/nature10564. ISSN 0028-0836. Models of conventional dynamos driven by thermal or compositional convection have had difficulty reproducing the existence and apparently long duration of the lunar dynamo. Here we investigate an alternative mechanism of dynamo generation: continuous mechanical stirring arising from the differential motion
 Done Kodning 🌸 (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This article and Orbit of the Moon don't agree on the numbers.

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Semi-major axis 384399 km (1.28 ls; 1/389 AU; 1 LD) Mean orbit radius 384784 km (1.28 ls; 1/384 AU; 1.001 LD)"

vs.

"Semi-major axis 384,748 km (239,071 miles) Mean distance 385,000 km (239,000 miles) Inverse sine parallax 384,400 km (238,900 miles)"

I am confused what the difference is and why there is a difference. Can this be checked across the two articles and the numbers verified? My intuition is that these should be calculated as the distance from the Earth-Moon barycenter to the Moon itself, or the measurements of how the number was calculated made explicitly clear like (from EM-Barycenter to Moon center) or (from Earth center to Moon center). ~2026-28517-55 (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

These articles can both be correct. Orbit of the Moon uses a 1983 source. Which source one chooses to use depends upon the application. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Johnjbarton and @~2026-28517-55, the newer source might be used if people want it to be stay current and the older source might be used if people believe the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Some people like staying current and some people really like staying with old sources because they are accurate and don't want to replace it with an "unreliable" newer source. Hamimh2 (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Edit request: Fix incorrect claim of 20-day Archean synodic month

[edit]
Latest comment: 4 hours ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I suggest replacing "This has resulted in the length of a anomalistic month having increased from 20 days to today's 27.55 days over the course of 3.2 billion years." with "This has resulted in both the synodic month and the solar day increasing in duration over the course of 3.2 billion years, with a smaller relative change in the number of solar days per month." which better reflects the content of the cited study.

I already made a similar change to the Orbit of the Moon article, but this article here is semi-protected. ~2026-31651-65 (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I like this, but don’t trust myself.
You should create an account! In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 01:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the content was off base, even incorrect. However I made a completely different change. The paper is clear that the concept of "month" is unclear. It discusses multiple definitions in relation to the data, match what most readers will imagine when they read "month". I replaced the month value with the more clearly defined by equally startling solar day, 13 hours. Please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. 🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 23:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moon&oldid=1366229291"