Talk:Moon

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2025

The moon's polar (85 degrees north) min temperature is 70 K because 150x2 = 300, remove 230 (max temp) and its 70 Ertgiuhnoyo (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Any explanation given these figures are citing reliable sources? We prefer those to our own calculations. Remsense ‥ 论 10:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

??? what are these calculations supposed to mean? This doesn’t even make sense without context — 𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 14:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

4 different values, 3 different units for surface pressure on Moon

WBA - my personal notes begin "WBA" Lines without this prefix are cut and paste from the Wikipedia document.

WBA 4 different Values in 3 different units of the Moon's surface pressure, and odd expression of scientific notation numbers, are not helpful.

WBA Values given in 3 places on 2 different versions of the Moon page are

WBA Main Moon page, first value
"10-7 Pa (1 picobar) (day)"
"10-10 Pa (1 femtobar) (night)"

WBA Main Moon page, second value
"3 × 10−15 atm (0.3 nPa)"

WBA Simple English Moon page, only value:
"2.25 × 10-12 torr"

WBA The second value on the Main page and the single value on the Simple English page are equivalent. Neither is either value given in the first instance on the Main page, or their average.

WBA Checked on Google's conversion page, after adding an "E" for exponential
WBA 1 x 10E-7 Pascal = 1e-12 Bar
WBA 1 x 10E-10 Pascal = 1e-15 Bar
WBA 3 x 10E-15 standard atmosphere = 3.03975e-15 Bar
WBA 2.25 x 10E-12 torr = 2.99975e-15 Bar

WBA Ugly details:

WBA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon WBA Data box under photo, upper right, first page, near bottom of "Atmosphere"

Atmosphere
Surface pressure	10−7 Pa (1 picobar)  (day) 10−10 Pa (1 femtobar)   (night)

WBA The displayed value "10-7" is incomplete. Other values for this measurement have some numeric value, 3, 2.25, etc. The source shows a naked multiplication operator, which seems wrong.

WBA Footnote "[e]" appears in web page but not in source. Here's what that footnote describes. I can't attach a screen shot.

1. Lucey et al. (2006) give 10⁷ particles cm⁻³ by day and 10⁵ particles cm⁻³ by night. Along with equatorial surface temperatures of 390 K by day and 100 K by night, the ideal gas law yields the pressures given in the infobox (rounded to the nearest order of magnitude): 10⁻⁷ Pa by day and 10⁻¹⁰ Pa by night.

WBA To my untrained eye, this looks like original work, a calculation based on numbers from source(s) with math done on them. WBA I note that "10^-7" creates the very non-standard user text, "10-7" which is someone's version of "10E-7" or perhaps 10-7 but is NOT recognizable scientific notation, which would be "1 x 10E-7" which is how most scientific numbers in Wikipedia are presented.

WBA Compare to further into page

Atmosphere

Main article: Atmosphere of the Moon The surface pressure of this small mass is around 3 × 10⁻¹⁵ atm (0.3 nPa);

WBA Finally, there is a third figure in a third unit, in the "Simple English" version of the "Moon" page

WBA https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
WBA Data box under photo, upper right, first page. Last item under "Physical characteristics"

Surface pressure	2.25  × 10-12 torr

I am Bill Abbott, and I have an account but can't get logged in so I'm posting this and then I'll sort out my password. 2001:5A8:60E7:F200:2DB4:606A:BD04:668B (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

To the Moon

OK, first of all, I have to say that Zxcvbnm has an...unusual interpretation of WP:BRD. Zxcvbnm's edit was bold and I reverted. Zxcvbnm should have been the one to start discussing.

I don't think this is a close call at all. The material added in this edit does not belong here. It is not about the Moon. (It's also a bit of OR as the source given does not mention The Honeymooners, but that's a secondary point; even if well-sourced, it would still be a piece of trivia that has nothing to do with the Moon.) --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
UPDATE: OK, there is a source mentioning The Honeymooners, but the connection to the mention in cryptocurrency is still OR. --Trovatore (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Common sense is not original research. Given that the two are the exact same phrase, that is common sense. The article doesn't imply that the phrase is based on The Honeymooners, which would be WP:SYNTH, just that it is a phrase that has enduring usage in popular culture.

I do not see how the phrase "to the Moon" is not related to the Moon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I also do not see how my edit was "bold", it was a simple addition of content to the article. Reverting another's valid addition to the article is a bold deletion, hence my interpretation that BRD started at that point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

You don't think addition of content to an article can be bold? Really? I don't see that as a serious position.

It's also not a serious addition. It's a piece of linguistic trivia among a great many things we could say about references to the Moon in the English language. This article is about the Moon, not about phrases that trivially reference it. --Trovatore (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

If it is overly trivial for this page, please point me to the better place to write that information. There does not appear to be a "Moon in culture" article, only one about the Moon in sci-fi, and following WP:SIZESPLIT, the section about the Moon in culture would have to increase to a sufficient size first, which is not possible if it's constantly being policed like this. If there is no better place to put it, and it is valid information for Wikipedia, then it logically must be allowed in this article, and cannot be removed for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a trivial reference to the subject - it's a fictional character's catchphrase that happens to have the word "moon" in it. There are probably hundreds of such uses and they're not about The Moon per se. Moon Mullican? Moon Pie? Showing one's buttocks? Moon Over My Hammy? Is there a place to put it? Maybe Ralph Kramden? - Special-T (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, if there are tons of fully sourced, not original research phrases and terms involving the Moon that are widely used in culture, they should be added. If the section becomes too large or UNDUE, it can be split off. That is not an excuse for censorship of Wikipedia based on what you, personally, find trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The phrase "To the Moon!" has nothing to do with the Moon, it is about distance. It can be replaced with another celestial body and it would retain its intended meaning. The source womansworld.com does not comment on the meaning of the phrase, it simply mentions it, so this part "meaning that something or someone is, metaphorically, lifting off towards the Moon at high speeds" is WP:OR. Likewise, the source fool.com describes the phrase as "To the moon" means that a cryptocurrency is either rapidly increasing in value or that people think it's poised to do so. They lowercased "moon", focusing on the meaning of the metaphor rather than its relation to the Moon. So the paragraph is not due for inclusion in this article. TurboSuperA+(connect) 10:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)