Talk:Claimed moons of Earth

Notability

This article does not cite any reliable sources to backup the notability of a topic about "Earth's second moon". The intro cites are almost exclusively about Cruithne. External links show a series of blog posts and this website entry[1], none of which really pass muster per WP:RELY. The remainder of the article is a grab bag of object topics that seem to run afoul of WP:NOT namely WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS - series of news reports, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY - Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations under one made up article name (see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The page was split off from Lilith (hypothetical moon) to separate astronomy and astrology. Fotaun (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is fine. It needs a cleanup, but the information is sound. Serendi^podous 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Did some cleanup deleting allot of redundant and irrelevant information. "Fine" would be defined as a reliable source at the end of the first sentence. "Sound information" is not the problem. Collecting a hodgepodge of sound information under a neologism or catch phrase is not considered encyclopedic (see also: WP:SYNTH). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me like your biggest problem is with the title. Perhaps Alternate natural satellites of Earth would be more appropriate? Serendi^podous 21:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem is not the name, its the problem with this article being Non-encyclopedic. Alternate natural satellites of Earth is something that does not exist (articles about things that don't exist are Non-encyclopedic). There are objects that orbit the Earth such as Quasi-satellites but they have their own article already (redundant articles are Non-encyclopedic). There only seems to be one source article specifically about this topic (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). So again we are up against the fact that there are no reliable sources cited in the intro (and we need many to show a mainstream academic discourse). That's a problem. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote an article a while back called Planets beyond Neptune. As far as anyone knows, there are no planets beyond Neptune, but I got that article to FA level. I think there is a historical case to be made for illustrating the search for Earth's second moon, even if, as of right now, there isn't much of a scientific one. Serendi^podous 18:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Planets beyond Neptune conforms with Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms and seems to be the encyclopedic article for all Planet X type articles and material. And there is allot of mainstream academic discourse on that topic. Their is only one cited non-WP:RELY paper on "Earth's second moon" and the title goes counter to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms. And the material in this article is redundant to already existent Wikipedia articles Quasi-satellite, 3753 Cruithne, Lilith (hypothetical moon), and Near-Earth objects. A case could be made for this article, but their need to be references pointing to those historical cases. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Other planets besides Earth have quasi-satellites; not all near-earth objects are quasi satellites of Earth, Cruithne is not the only known quasi satellite of Earth and Lilith is an astrological concept, not a scientific one. This article addresses an angle on these objects that none of the others do: it examines them in the light of trying to find Earth's second moon. Serendi^podous 19:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

2006 RH120

Is this article intended for historical purposes only or would it be appropriate to include 2006 RH120 beyond a see also section. 2006 RH120 actually enters Earth orbit for a year at a time every 21 months which better holds the defintion of a natural satellite than 3753 Cruithne or the other asteroids mentioned here.--RadioFan (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure if you want to add it, but be sure to include a reference to someone else making the claim you just did. Serendi^podous 08:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

its orbit

On 14 September 2006 an object estimated at 5 meters in diameter was discovered in near polar orbit around Earth.

Does that mean near and polar, or near-polar (nearly polar)? If the latter, let's remove ambiguity by rewording it as "highly inclined". —Tamfang (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"began a search"

In the late 19th century, Hamburg scientist Dr. Georg Waltemath began a search for secondary moons of Earth ....

The phrase "began a search" is a recent change from "searched". Does this mean he concluded his search after 1900? —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The original wording mentioned that he began a search before 1898, but didn't specify when. Serendi^podous 18:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the next sentence begins "In 1898, he announced", do we need to mention the beginning of his search at all? —Tamfang (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewording it. Serendi^podous 08:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Keen. —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Diagram

The quasi-satellite section says "when observed from Earth, Cruithine seems to orbit it", but in the accompanied animation the yellow line clearly doesn't circumscribe the Earth. Clarification is definitely needed. ✍ (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Also, the shape of the earth's orbit appears to oscillate slightly, but the earth itself remain stationary in the orbit, and that is baffling. Stars appear to flash by in the background, and that is unexplained.

Meanwhile, how is this caption to be reconciled with the main text of the article, which states that Cruithne "appears to have a horseshoe orbit when viewed from Earth". I suspect that all of this would make sense if only there were some clarification about what we're meant to be seeing. Downstrike (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 08:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Message not completely clear

The lead section can't seem to quite decide whether there are no other satellites, and that's a definite (per "the Moon remains the Earth's only natural satellite"), or whether it's just that we've searched very hard and none have been found (per "none have ever been verified", "failed to confirm a permanent natural satellite"). 86.179.7.29 (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

revised Serendi^podous 07:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Quasi-satellites and Trojans

Article currently has :

"The key difference between a satellite and a quasi-satellite is that a natural Earth satellite's orbit fundamentally depends upon the gravity of the Earth-Moon system whereas the orbit of a quasi-satellite would negligibly change if the Earth and Moon were suddenly removed since a quasi-satellite is orbiting the Sun on an Earth-like orbit in the vicinity of the Earth.[20]"

But the path of the Moon is everywhere concave towards the Sun; therefour, it can be said that the Sun's gravity is dominant. I suggest that the quoted paragraph does not say what it is meant to say.

94.30.84.71 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

QI

According to QI, hosted by Stephen Fry "Cruithne" is the second moon of Earth. The BBC are likely to know more than the people posting here so this page needs to be updated. For more info ask the BBC, the second moon revolves around the Earth every 770 years and was discovered in 1994, not 1986 as it says in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.237.42 (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

QI gets a lot of things wrong. Cruithne is not a "second moon" of Earth, but a quasi-satellite. Even The Book of General Ignorance updated this when it discussed Cruithne. Serendi^podous 12:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

3753 Cruithne (1986 TO) was very clearly discovered in 1986, and takes 363.98 days to orbit the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Satellites, not moons

The Moon is a proper noun, and refers to Earth's satellite. The name of this article and the language used in it should be changed to reflect that. 24.113.227.231 (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Moon" is standard in titles. See Europa (moon) and Moons of Jupiter. Serendi^podous 17:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia titles are not an argument. It's only standard because few people have forced it and the media took it as something valid. They have always been called satellites. That's why we have "artificial satellites". Lajoswinkler (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

1.5 Modern status

Deleted first para. as it's redundant, & it's meaning is unclear.Archolman User talk:Archolman 18:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claimed moons of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013190453/http://curious.astro.cornell.edu:80/question.php?number=578 to http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=578

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claimed moons of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121208143923/http://utstaging.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html to http://utstaging.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

new earth temporary moon might of been found

https://www.space.com/minimoon-fireball-over-australia-desert.html

however it hit earth in 2016 in australia

new section for this one would be needed.Joshoctober16 (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

2019 UN13

As stated by [1], it seems to be another relevant temporary moon. Is it relevant for the article? Should we include it in the list?

Bye, Andrea Angus73 (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

https://catalina.lpl.arizona.edu/news/2019/11/catalina-sky-survey-scares-tiny-earth-grazing-halloween-asteroid

i dont see any proof stating of it ever orbiting earth at all , at lest from that link Joshoctober16 (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Terminology : moon?

I consider that to be called a moon of Earth, an natural object must orbit the Earth in a path which is essentially an ellipse with the Earth at one focus (the object must also be substantially smaller than the Earth). So section "Quasi-satellites and trojans" should be, or be in, a different page. Likewise the other mentions of objects connected with L4 & L5. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Kazimierz Kordylewski, the Polish astronomer

Wikipedia here has forgotten to mention that the Polish astronomer Kazimierz Kordylewski discovered Kordylewski Clouds /he called it Kordylewski’s Moons/ in 1961.He received NASA medal in 1972 and several other medals for this achievement. It took the world MANY years to confirm his discovery in 2018. 49.190.240.218 (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)