Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Moon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Articles to Add
2 Hello.
3 Article assessment
4 Photo galleries?
5 "Importance" of craters, mountains, features, mare
6 Category:Craters on the Moon, and Category:Moon
7 Geographical divisions for features
8 Full moon cycle proposed for deletion

[edit] 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]

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)