Talk:Far side of the Moon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Moon WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Moon-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-priority on the priority scale. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
Are there any objections to removing the following text:
"It is similar to the use of the expression "darkest continent", which portrayed the lack of knowledge concerning the conditions in the interior of the African continent by most of Europe in the 19th century."
Strictly speaking, you can make an argument that it is related to the rest of the paragraph. However, I do not think this passage enhances the quality of the article.
Hiberniantears 21:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Move
I've moved the page because I almost never hear it referred to as just "far side" without "of the moon" appended on first reference, so I thought it would make more sense to use a name that doesn't need an extra disambiguator. Night Gyr 11:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] dark side is not far side
the dark side of the moon and the far side of the moon are not the same thing. the far side is the side facing away from earth. however, during a new moon, the dark side is the side facing earth. during a half moon, you can see half of the dark side of the moon. why then does "dark side of the moon" redirect here? 68.225.64.137 17:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- because dark is also used in the metaphoric sense unknown (Dark Ages, Africa the Dark Continent). —Tamfang 18:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- As it says in this article under "History". --Heron 18:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redirect
Should "Dark Side Of The Moon" really redirect here? I'm sure that most people are looking for the Pink Floyd album...Grymsqueaker 16:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] He-3
I'm not sure if this sentence belongs here:
- "Because the near side is partly shielded from the solar wind by the Earth, the far side maria are expected to have the highest concentration of Helium-3 on the surface of the Moon. This isotope is relatively rare on the Earth, but has good potential for use as a fuel in fusion reactors. Proponents of lunar settlement have cited presence of this material as a reason for development of a Moon base."
While the farside of the Moon might be "partially shielded" from the solar wind, I doubt if this is significant. I would guess this might give rise to a difference of only 5%. In all likelihood, local geologic conditions and regolith composition is more important than this effect. Lunokhod 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Aliens
I think the possibility of there being an alien base on the far side of the moon should be briefly mentioned, to most people it probably sounds crazy but I am open minded and I'm sure alot of Wikipedia readers are as well. I have read on websites and heard from documentaries that when the astronauts on the Apollo 11 mission went around the moon to the far side where they lost radio communication they saw a massive dome shaped building and what appeared to be a destroyed city. However I think any evidence I can find wouldn't be considered creditible so such a section may not be plausible. What do you guys think? Black death 00:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think you've got it exactly right: for Wikipedia, it doesn't matter what's true about sightings of an alien dome on the fair side of the moon. What matters is whether there's a reliable published source to cite that says anything about it. So... find that source and add a sentence or two based on what is says about alien domes, using that source as a reference! Sdsds 04:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help, I found an about.com article (http://ufos.about.com/od/nasaufos/p/moonufos1.htm), would it be considered a reputable secondary source? Also would I need a primary source as well to make a new section? Black death 21:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reading through that about.com article was interesting. I noticed, very close to its end it says, "The last humans to touch the lunar surface were Russians aboard the probe Luna 24." Too bad Luna 24 was a robotic mission, with no humans on board. Do you think that inaccuracy in any way detracts from the believability of the other claims the article makes? Sdsds 04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It seems like a careless mistake, we all make mistakes however when you're writing an article for a reputable site like about.com you should be researching more thoroughly. I don't want to say that the article is unreputable but it should have been written with greater care. Since such an inconsistency arose I'll try to look for another reputable source but If I can't find one I'll use the about.com one anyways since it's mostly well researched.Black death 23:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
