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.
This is an archive of past discussions about Moon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Currently we say
The Moon and Earth pull gravitationally on each other, creating tidal forces. These are the main drivers of Earth's tides and have synchronized the Moon's rotation period (lunar day) with its orbital period (lunar month), causing the Moon to face Earth always with the same side, a phenomenon know as tidal locking.
I think we can do better. We have a mutual force with consequences on both sides. But "...pull...creating tidal forces" does not make sense and I think the long second sentence is trying to do too much.
How about something like:
The Moon and the Earth interact through gravity. The Moon causes the Earth's tides. The Earth causes tidal forces on the Moon which have synchronized the Moon's rotation period (lunar day) with its orbital period (lunar month), causing the Moon to face Earth always with the same side, a phenomenon known as tidal locking.
Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
This edit request to Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change: The Moon formed out of material from Earth, ejected by a giant impact into Earth of a hypothesized Mars-sized body named Theia 4.51 billion years ago, not long after Earth's formation.
To: The Moon is hypothesized to have formed out of material from Earth, ejected by the impact of a Mars-sized body named Theia 4.51 billion years ago, not long after Earth's formation.
Rationale: if Theia is "hypothesized" then logically so is the impact — a known impact cannot be caused by a hypothetical body; if we stipulate that an impact occurred, then the body must have been real.
Additionally, the phrasing a giant impact into Earth is grammatically awkward and redundant; given that the impact resulted in material from Earth forming the Moon, that impact must have been with the Earth. ~2025-30896-10 (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
From my understanding, it is scientifically understood that the Moon is made of matter from earth, but the process through which this happened is only hypothesized, making the original sentence correct. Aston305(complain/compliment)14:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Note: Marking this as answered based on the comments above, but it looks like this change needs further disucssion. Please establish a consensus for this change before reopening this edit request. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2026
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
What is the source of this claim?
which is more than 5° relative to the Earth's equator
Wieczorek, M. A., Jolliff, B. L., Khan, A., Pritchard, M. E., Weiss, B. P., Williams, J. G., ... & Bussey, B. (2006). The constitution and structure of the lunar interior. Reviews in mineralogy and geochemistry, 60(1), 221-364. Orbit inclination 5.145° Inclination of equator to ecliptic 1.543° (1)
Disagree. The current image is a Featured Image and considered one of the best on Wikipedia as a result. I don't see any of the issues you're listing. Canterbury Tailtalk18:39, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, very clear difference. The Artemis II images are not good quality at all. They're snaps. Far from the quality we would use on a main image. Canterbury Tailtalk18:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
(responding to ping) I agree that the current image is fine, and the images in the Commons category are of worse quality in terms of fidelity. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
lets restart this discussion. Using images by @Rolf-Hempel and calibrating the image using gimp to achieve approximate true colour (calibrated using artemis images) i think this is a good image to use for the article. There is much more detail than the image on the article and it is in proper true colour. - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
I oppose changing to this new image.
I do agree that the current article image looks oversharpened, but I believe that is mostly a consequence of our eyes being poor at distinguishing precise features at such a distance. I agree with the others that the Artemis II images are not appropriate because of their low quality, and that your previous suggestion was too washed out.
Initially, I agreed with your perspective, the moon certainly looks less sharp and more washed out to my naked eye, but after comparing the current image to this albedo map, I found the color values are almost identical except the current image is a bit brighter (which helps distinguish features a bit better):
It is completely normal for very distant/small objects on Wikipedia to be represented by an image taken through some kind of zoom optic. Basically every spaceborne object is, as well as everything below a dozen or so microns in width. This doesn't take away from the image's validity. That photograph was taken by a telescope, a totally appropriate and normal way to view the moon. Had you looked through the uploader's telescope on that particular night you would've seen that image.
Also, with regard to your critique of the albedo map, I was just solely using it as an example of that, albedo. The value (brightness) of the map lines up appropriately with the already used image. Anything taken with an acceptably calibrated RGB camera is "true color", but that is quite different from being a precise reflection of what you might subjectively see. The Artemis II mission is incredible, and I personally hope there are some good pictures released of the moon from it, but just because they were in space does not inherently make their photos more correct than a photo someone took through a telescope from Earth. Lychniis (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
This article and Orbit of the Moon don't agree on the numbers.
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)
@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)
Edit request: Add sourced information to magnetic field section.
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion
This edit request to Moon has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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]
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 Discuss06:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
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 fieldandonlyhascrustalmagnetization. ThemagneticfieldhistoryoftheMooniscontroversial;thereisnotcurrentlyconsensusonthepastintensityandtimingoftheMoon'spaleomagneticfield. ManypaleomagneticmeasurementsoflunarsamplesbroughtfromtheApollomissionshavebeenconducted. SomeinterpretationsofthesemeasurementsindicatethattheMoon’spaleomagneticfieldcanbecharacterizedbytwoepochs. Thefirstbeinganearly,short,andrelativelystrongperiodfrom4.25to3.58billionyearsago,reachingintensitiesaround100μT,closetothatofEarth’stoday. Itisdifficultforasinglemechanismtogeneratethisspecificdynamohistory.
+
The Moon does not currently have a global dipolar magnetic field;[*]itonlyhascrustalmagnetization.[*]ThemagneticfieldhistoryoftheMooniscontroversial,[*]andthereisstillnoconsensusonthepastintensityandtimingoftheMoon'spaleomagneticfield.[*]ManypaleomagneticmeasurementshavebeentakenfromlunarsamplescollectedduringtheApollomissions. Some[†]interpretations[^]ofthesemeasurementsindicate[†]thattheMoon’spaleomagneticfieldcan[†]becharacterizedbytwoepochs.[*]Inthefirstepoch(4.25billionto3.58billionyearsago),magneticfieldintensitiesreachedaround100microteslas(1Gauss),closetothatofEarth’stoday. [§]Itisunlikelythatasinglemechanismgeneratedthisspecificdynamohistorywithoutexternalinfluence.[*]
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)
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)
References
↑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)
↑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.
↑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)
↑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.
↑ 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. ISSN8755-1209. 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.
↑ 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. ISSN0148-0227. Using the 329 optimal passes, global maps of the lunar crustal magnetic field are constructed at 30 and 40 km.
↑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. ISSN1752-0894. The history of the lunar magnetic field is a longstanding controversy.
↑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. ISSN2375-2548. PMC8336955. PMID34348904. Together, these data indicate that the Moon did not have a long-lived core dynamo.
123 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. ISSN2375-2548. PMC5550224. PMID28808679. 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.
12Mighani, 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. ISSN2375-2548. PMC6938704. PMID31911941. 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
↑ Weiss, Benjamin P.; Tikoo, Sonia M. (2014-12-05). "The lunar dynamo". Science. 346 (6214). doi:10.1126/science.1246753. ISSN0036-8075. analyses of hundreds of samples seemed to indicate the existence of ancient magnetic fields with intensities ranging from 0.1 to 120 μT
↑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. ISSN0028-0836. 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
Note: Marking this as answered based on the comments above, but it looks like this change needs further disucssion. Please establish a consensus for this change before reopening this edit request. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
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)